Thursday, July 14, 2016

Topless complaint

I hate this video
Okay, first let me give over my position on baring breasts and taboos about nudity in public.  I have mixed opinions and my opinion is largely dependent on context and places and person.  Nudity on a public school playground by a man troubles me, nudity on a beach by a woman in France less so.  Nudity by gender is not an equal proposition,nor by individual and the genders have different methods, devices and value.  And these are not “cultural” or societal, though these things inflect how the background drives are tribally expressed. But I’ll get into this in a moment.  As to women baring their breasts casually, I have no real opinion.  Baring their breasts as an act of rebellion, not very impressed…as it rings less than sincere, and very likely, ineffective in terms of whatever “statement” it is making.  It is also of a family of very, very old rituals, which I’ll cover in a moment.  I think nothing in that video was thought through or factual.  It was silly.  But let’s start.
This video is not meant to appeal to facts or offer over information on any issue or growing concern.  There may be interest and a want of bare breasted, and casual social interactions, but that isn’t given over here, or if it is, the roots and interests of that “casual” bare breastedness have some tells that lead to less casual and more manipulative ideas.  The first clues as to bullshit is the mention of the activities of the Native Americans, who all went topless in the summer.  Now the example of the French, mentioned above, who often go topless on beaches was not chosen because they don’t evoke the “nature” fallacy.  The French aren’t seen as wholesomely natural as “Native Americans”.  This appeal to the authority of the natural is bogus.  Which Native Americans, I wonder?  All of them?  Through all time?  I know many women of Native American descent, none of them went topless in the summer that I recall.  Native Americans are not an animal of the past but exist now also. This universal toplessness didn’t keep Native Americans from Alaska to Tierra Del Fuego from human sacrifice, rape, warfare or any other of the varieties of human behaviors attendant to a variety of peoples over many thousands of years. Toplessness may have been a trivial affair. El ninos, court politics, murderous enemies, and when Europe arrived, mass extinction may have been more concerning.  Then again…maybe not.  Breasts aren’t a trivial matter.
But I don’t know they all went topless in summer.  Some probably did, some probably didn’t, and there may have been some mix and match (like the French beaches).  Dress to comfort and the caprice of the taboo of the moment.
To further say no one thought anything of it is unlikely.  Where this happened people probably thought things of it.  The stone age Venus statues, for example, would seem to show the emphatic fatty deposits exemplary of the female anatomy, were of importance.
To say it is okay to bare your breasts doesn’t need this natural authority if casual in itself nor does it need justification.  The communal innocence implied is a bit flimsy.  Whereas actual harmlessness would say a lot more than a justification.  But is it innocent?  Is it just casual, ever for men or women? (I would ask if “casual” isn’t a manipulative social pose and tribal identifier in itself.)
Following this in the video are the signs of powerful and aristocratic women throughout the world baring their breasts. What is this supposed to say?  So throughout time,  royal women, powerful women and aristocratic women have taken it as a point of power to step outside the convention of the lower status and bare their breasts?  (Why not show the Minoans too…just an absence I noticed…not really a problem.) What is the precedent being referenced?  This is kind of expected, as aristocrats take on certain entitlements, and differentiating dress to separate and exaggerate power relationships.  This doesn’t say toplessness was casual, it says toplessness is power.  This isn’t to say boobs are powerful, therefore women are powerful.  It is saying defying sexual taboos shows placement in the social hierarchy over those who have to obey.
But I think this video is suggesting in other times it was okay to bare breasts.  Okay.  And?  It is probably okay now too.  I’m not sure it has been noticed but modern movies have regular nudity, why the appeal to antiquity?  These paintings are a sign of “beauty and femininity”. Maybe…I am aware of more than a few paintings from the era shown that are a little more spicy and mischievous than that and go against the later rebuke in the video “If we continue to eroticize the breast as a plump salacious morsel of female sexual essence than we are kinda robbing women of their full bodily agency.”  How eroticizing the breast robs agency is not explained. Eroticizing, or sexual interest, is also natural, normal and bodily.  Breasts are sexual as well as useful with offspring, and a sexual identifier for the agent sporting them.  As is a given.  Agency is not robbed by any parties from any parties. I do find it interesting that a type of social bullying and dictate is offered here, but modified with “kinda”. Bullying others who find boobs stimulating (no one chooses to love boobs, we just do) as a crime, kinda, seems like trying to manipulate to advantage. Neither old men nor young women dictate the rules of sex.
So these nonsensical diversions are the introduction to the point of the video “who writes the rules of sexuality?”  And the question of boob taboos.  The boob taboos are blamed on Christians in Africa, and the Victorian era.  This is mentioned as the start of the taboo against the female body in the Western world.  No.
So let’s look at a few things first.  The taboos against the female body go way further back than this.  They are pre-Christian, they are prehistoric.  Likewise, aspects of the male body were and are taboo.  This isn’t to make this fair and balanced that I mentioned “men too.”  The thing to look at here is taboo, which is magic.  Taboo is usually the “don’t do” aspect of an otherwise potent magic.  Menstruation has many magical dos and don’t throughout history including isolation, burning goods, and magic potions.  It fit within the framework of the troubling concerns of birth, sex, and death.  These were (and in many ways still are) mysterious and troubling things.  But boobs don’t exactly fall into magical taboo, boobs are valuable in other ways.  They don’t have to do with sex, birth, and death magic as much as gender value on both sides of the gender coin.
Let’s consider who writes the rules of sexuality.  Well, evolution has a lot to do with it.  And though always fun to blame old white men and sexist behavior, there are some real considerations about sex and gender, and boobs, that need to be brought into the discussion. As a good friend of mine pointed out, boobs were valuable and an issue before humans included whites, and oldness had some different standards…not exactly the Roman Senate.
One of my favorite areas to introduce the subject of gender relationships is fat pads.
When studying anatomy you will eventually find a chart that has a side by side comparison of the sexes.  The differences between the sexes is called “sexual dimorphism”.  Within a species depending on the economics of energy within a setting, competition will mold the genders to great similarity, or great difference.  The greater difference between the appearance of the sexes is a good indicator of serious sexual competition.  In our case men are generally larger and stronger with thicker brows, and remnants of longer eye teeth, for example.  A noticeable difference between men and women, though, is the distribution of fat pads.  This includes boobs, but also the butt, thighs, arms, knee,  beneath the navel etc.  Women have more deposits of fat, which come in handy in various times of need, which we can skip for now.  We are talking about sex.  When female humans have fattier diets (when they eat better) in their childhood years they reach sexual maturity earlier.  The signal for this sexual maturity is prominent rounded fatty deposits.  This is very important in a deep and strange way. (It has also been noted that the fatty advantages for sexual ends, can be the same fatty health disadvantages when older-our sexual interests and personal interests don’t always agree.)
I have mentioned the kiki/bouba effect before.

It is an image of two figures, one called kiki, one called bouba.  One is spikey and the other is bubbly.  This image is used to show that people have cross modal understanding of sound and vision.  People usually assign the proper name to the proper figure without knowing why.  The reason why is we have neurons that respond to both sound and vision.  Sound and vision are tied.  Though our eyes and ears are the conduits through which we take in data, that data passes through several systems and processes before it becomes a full experience.  Our senses aren’t quite what we have traditionally believed.  When we see facial expressions angling and curving we are in some ways “hearing” those expressions.  If you watch musicians playing instruments their faces taken on the characteristics of the music, that is the line indicators on their face perform the correlate sounds in the music that we understand emotionally and in speech.  But it isn’t just sound and vision, this interaction of the information taken in by our sense organs is all over.  Curves, lines, intersections and corners, and how they move in time and space are a keystone of the way we “know”.  This includes lines of motion, both those we enact and feel, and those we see when we watch others move.  It has been found that humans can tell biological movement, including gender, using only 12 small lights on a moving figure in a dark room.
The other aspect of the Kiki/Bobou effect that is of note is that we can also usually tell the gender of these figures.  This is because of fat pads and our cortical maps.
Our brains have several versions of our bodies mapped onto its surface.  In greater and lesser detail and with variable function these maps provide us with our sense of our body, our body schema, as well as a good space around our bodies (called peripersonal space).  It is how we feel and “know” our bodies.  We have topographical representations of the body surface in the somatosensory cortex.  These are separated into hierarchies or levels, and these maps maintain.
I won’t get more technical, for the moment.
I mention this because how we feel, how and who we are as bodies are known to us, pre-consciously. How we move, the way pilot our bodies, our physical capacities in balance and strength are all pre-conscious information we use persistently but don’t assemble deliberately.  This experiential activity is surprisingly intrusive and projects.  As an artist, I have the advantage of seeing it not only in myself but can recognize it with other artists as they “infect” their drawings (especially those done by imagination, but also portraits) with their own features.  The cross-modal visual/feeling drawings they produce are in many ways external cortical maps.  But we attempt to relate to and recognize ourselves in many very simple figures and patterns.  We can know the gender of Kiki or Bouba because we can feel it, or can assume things from lines or curves and our own spatial maps of our bodies and motions.  The strange part is we identify in exaggeration and we do not identify every part. Our brains bounce a signal to our muscles in imitation of living things we see.  From the feedback of that bounce determines all kinds of agency, likeness, or relationship.   We, in a sense, “try on” other people and things.  For women, one of the comparative areas is fat pads.  We see boobs as an important indicator.  All of us.
My point is, boobs are not a social construct or legal fiction, and to our animal not casual.  That said, the same value doesn’t need to be boobs especially.  It can be hips or other sexual signals.  As mentioned: Eroticizing the breast as a plump salacious morsel of female sexual essence is part of what is happening by both men and women.  You see, there is a problem that is popular but unfounded: sexual equality.  There is no such thing.  You probably want an explanation….me too.
So let’s break this up into proper segments so we don’t muddy the water.  Equality in tasks and skills by humans seems to have some variations, but for work and career, we can say that there are capabilities in common between the genders.  So we’ll call this “ bourgeois gender equality”.  I don’t mean bourgeois in a derogatory way.  I mean it in terms of the merchant classifications that emerged in Europe during the late middle ages.  These bourgeois ideas involved rethinking time (like hours in a workday as opposed to Church hours) and production.  So for work, regardless of which is statistically better in one regard or another en masse, we can say there are examples of proficient men and women in any given profession not dependent on gender.
But let’s move away from task-based skill.  Other things are going on.  Sex is never held aside or removed from life.  The building blocks of identity and position are intermixed with sex and sexual viability.  The kiki/bouba effect is instructive to show how deep and expansively we are aware of sexual identity, hierarchy, and viability.  We identify and differentiate automatically.  No deliberation.  No planning.  So instead of “equal” we know difference.  We build these identifications based on our own bodies in space, their appearance, and how we interact (subtly not socio-political stances).
We’ve noted work capability, involuntary identification of sex in ourselves and others, but now let’s look at how the genders deal with sex and where boobs (or other sexual signals) fit into this.  Let’s look at tournament style vs pair-bonding sexual interaction.  As I mentioned above animals fit into categories of sexual style.  One is tournament style.  Tournament style is characterized by a wide range of differences in the sexes.  Males will be larger with more combat-ready gear.  If you consider this as raw energy, it is expensive to be this kind of animal.  Being battle ready (against other males) is costly.  Killing competitors or driving them off is rough stuff.  To compensate, animals like this are generally not stay-at-home-dads.  The expense in energy raising offspring is deferred to the fight. These males breed widely and freely and as much as possible.  Their chances of death in combat don’t lend to pair bonding.  Instead, their DNA demands a different avenue to better chances.  Likewise, the females in this interaction tend to have female traits as emphatic signals.  If the males are brutal, knobby, and dangerous in appearance, the females will also show the signs of their best energy use-having good offspring and in some regard being able to maintain them for a time.
Females also have a tournament sexual style.  Females with overt sexual attributes (again costly to maintain) will sexually select those males most likely to provide strong offspring, but then when the tournament male is gone will find another male to raise the offspring.  This frees the female up to have more strong offspring while deferring the energy of raising the offspring to less sexually viable males.
Then there is pair bonding.  Sexual dimorphism has a smaller range among pair-bonded animals.  In this setup males and females look a lot alike.  This look isn’t superficial.  They share common burdens.  Their energy dispersal between mating, fighting, and raising offspring is such, that sexual signals can use less energy, while other concerns (like mortality of offspring, food gathering, etc) need more attention.  The common task sculpts them to uniformity, while with tournament style, the population of rivals in an environment sculpt them to difference.
Many animals tend toward one or the other end of this range.  But it is all present.  Given proper environmental cues and stresses the pendulum can swing over time.  Humans, of course, fit in this range.  And it isn’t definitive how or where.  Males tend to be large, stronger, with larger teeth, and women tend toward being fatty (literally looking like energy reserves for themselves and others).  We move within a range of gender-specific arcs (easily identified with a minimum of information).  But at the same time, we are not extremely different.  As mentioned above humans seem capable of sharing very difficult tasks with equal facility. Barring gender-specific tasks, we overlap in skills quite a bit.  Likewise, there are large numbers of pair-bonded and tournament mates in common areas of overlap, performing common tasks.  That is to say, these styles exist in humans side by side, whereas these methods usually indicate specifics in environmental pressures.  Likewise, they can exist in different order in the same person over a lifetime.
The question of sexual equality is somewhat meaningless or in flux.  That said sexual value is still very active and clear.
Boobs would seem to fall into a range of the tournament-style signal.  Being both sexual and involved with the care of offspring over a given time.  That noted, it isn’t as easy as saying boobs are a sign of humans as tournament style animal.  Likewise, it doesn’t say that boobs are taboo at the dictate of old white men.
Let’s consider sexual interest in boobs, fat pads, sexual value and trade, and back to kiki/bouba.
Why we like boobs.  You may have heard the idea that men like boobs evolutionarily because they resemble the buttocks, who’s curves and cleaves lead to the vagina.  Or that men like red lips because they resemble the signals of a sexually ready, engorged vagina.  These seem incorrect in any number of ways, and are random guesses, bordering on sympathetic magic.
The points of interest in these things are framed incorrectly to come to any answers about human sexuality.  Instead of “why do men”, it has to be put to all.  Why do humans love boobs?  It isn’t entirely men.  Just as a good guideline, any time blame is mentioned in gender be on your guard, bullshit is likely to follow.  We are in this together.
We have to consider boobs in terms of our animal.  We have a good deal of weight placed in the value of vision.  Anything that changes color, has spots or alters form and shape, or other visual exemplars are tells about attention.  Someone is looking.  The idea that men like cleavage because it looks like the cleavage of the rear end is making a superficial connection of likenesses.  Men don’t love cleavage.  Men love breasts with nipples.  Size can be of varying importance.  When cleavage isn’t present but breasts are still prominent, there is no lack of interest. This should be no surprise.  Most swim suits and upper torso garments worn by women in western civilization specifically hide nipples, but can still bare cleavage.  A key and obvious tell about interest is the coloration of nipples. Nipples are not only differing in shape and color from surrounding tissue, they also change shape and color during sexual arousal, and pregnancy.  They are evolved to be intently noticed and attended to by mates and (once vision is somewhat established) offspring.
The myth that boobs are for milk (implying single purpose) is a misunderstanding of organisms.  Things aren’t assembled for single use. How we note use describes our biases toward what we do, or our interests.  Breasts produce milk and nourish offspring for a time.  But equally, in fact in most cases, more often, they are sexual signals.  Let’s differentiate the mammary glands as seen, to how brains build them, specifically on women.
Pardon me if this is uncomfortable. I suspect the taboos around this subject are setting up uncomfortable twinges here or there.  It’s probably going to get worse before it gets better.  This might signal a need to examine taboo and value. Laying bare what is secret or conspicuously hidden might give over some interesting information.
Nursing has an interesting chemical component, which is oxytocin.  The “love hormone”.  Oxytocin is produced in several different circumstances, physical and social (maybe we should consider social things as somewhat physical or extensions of physicality-even transmission).  Petting your dog increases oxytocin levels (in both you and your dog).  Other circumstances include the physically triggered stretching of cervix and uterus during childbirth, and nipple stimulation during nursing.  But also nipple stimulation when not nursing.  Oxytocin levels increase for both sexes during sex, but it should be noted also during general social bonding.
Let’s compile some information.  A preconscious search is going on at all times among humans. We are attempting to identify routes and affordances in an evolutionary way.  That is we are maneuvering to reproduce, adapt, and viably compete.  The success through this triplet of pressures is determined by species.  Survival is not an individual description.  It refers to the general survival of a species.  How that species groups, blends, or becomes internally parasitic or predatory to maintain survival is variable.  We have evolved, like it or not, to be certain forms, with certain interactions.  With these interactions, over time, workable methods have led to successes and reinforcement of methods.  Oxytocin “confirms” likely successes.  It biases an organism toward binding at certain times or under certain conditions, or if another organism fits certain criteria. These criteria are determined by likeness, or fitness etc.
Boobs are not just a sexual signal.  As well as having visual size prominence, and color emphasis at the nipple, there are more things happening with them than acting as signals to outsiders.  Women have an interest in attention and stimulation of breasts and nipples.  This is not much of a surprise in any direction. Men know this, women know this.  Sexual stimulation of breasts is known.
In a conversation with a friend, I referred to an asshole I know of as “the kind of guy who gives titty twisters in gym class”.
My friend said “Titty twisters?  You mean ‘tune in Tokyo’?” And made a gesture both like a “titty twister” and radio knob turning.
I asked, “Tune in Tokyo?” having never heard this before.
Wistfully she said, “Ahhhh, a girl never forgets her first tune in Tokyo.”
Why?  The above mentioned cortical maps are interesting things.  They are the source of phantom limbs among amputees. The mapping persists even if what was mapped is gone.  Your brain keeps what is lost mapped.  And these maps can migrate.  They can cross territory, even double. Where a foot is missing but still felt, another foot may appear overlaid in the genitals.  This is interesting, dual placement.  But nipples might be different.  The nipple cortical maps are connected to the chest and torso.  But they also have a doubling in the overlapping group of the clitoris, cervix, and vagina….and likewise in the genital regions of men.  That is to say, that breasts and nipples are of sexual interest to all sides.  They are not just signals, they are involved with sexual gratification.  They are a part of eroticization on all sides.
This isn’t to say “both sides do it” like a political equivocation. This is just putting forward and lining up some facts-notably those set aside when trying to portray sex in a blame game of guilt or innocence, like indicating old white men lay down sexual law.
Sex is a powerful thing.  Among all animals it involves a great deal of wrangling and killing.  For all animals it is fundamentally important in some regard, whether in social status, or access. To think of sex politically is chronologically strange and superstitious.  To think of it economically seems reasonable.  The trope of old white men, or religion as overarching dictators of sexual codes is demonstrably false.  Old brown women and persons with no religions at all, have also played equally manipulative parts, and still do.  The control of sexual access and manipulation, or advantage, and even hoarding can be found in our near primate relatives and involves participation as well as unwelcome force (among both sexes).
If we take this video, which is not offering over reasoned fact or information, we can immediately note it is a maneuver.  It is using sex, and portraying sex in a narrative, fictional, form.  It links sex to rebellion.  But this isn’t new.  Nor is it “thoughtful” or smart.  It also fits into human rituals, tribalism, and an evolutionary situation of tension between becoming a parasite and a predator.
Among the Greeks the ritual called the Skiraphoria (and another called the Thesmophoria), had exclusive gatherings of women.  They would paint themselves white and eat garlic so they would look and smell unappealing. Ritually, they would discuss the overthrow of men, killing them, and taking over.  But this isn’t a feminist rebellion.  Men have similar rituals that are called “criminal” rites.  The Skiraphoria included other rites of “communal guilt”-in crime or taboo breaking and were socially binding.  Rebellion, criticism, vandalism, etc have this brand of grouping. Aligning with causes or issues serve this purpose (as do political parties.).
The part to note is within groups, once they are grouped, the members of the group turn on each other in the usual hierarchical fashion doling out sexual rites and taboos, food rites and taboos, and other “cultural” mandates.
The clichés and tropes in that video are not only incorrect, uninformed, and sneering, they are also unimportant.  There are issues involving gender that are important. Topless women doesn’t seem among them. Even uber free men, who can frolic free and topless all day usually wear shirts. Depending on jurisdiction this is variably true for women…I think Utah, Tennessee and Indiana being no goes…so if needed a targeted campaign to those places seem best.  Otherwise, I doubt many men, even old white men, would complain about topless women.  They might be surprised, but probably okay.

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

The Art Critic's Confession

“Art hath an enemy called ignorance”-Ben Johnson

If she weren’t my wife I would resent her. She sleeps easily. Wherever we find ourselves regardless of climate, altitude, or nation, she will sleep as soon as the lights go out. If she lays flat she will sleep. We laugh at this. I have seen her lose consciousness in mid-sentence. I call her “the chicken” as this bird is known to fall into immediate sleep when the lights go out.
I don’t bring this up to ridicule my wife, and as I mention I do not resent her somnia (if that can be counted a word). I enjoy watching her sleep, especially now as my sense of instability grows. Her sleep, her dreams, even those she can’t recall, put me at ease. She will wake momentarily and with a groggy voice, she will tell me she loves me, or mumble in a soft tone and touch my arm. She, at least, is at peace.
Isn’t that terrible? It is common speech to resign ourselves to leasts. Let me state it differently (so I don’t disgust myself.) Shall I write I envy her quick peace, or clarify and say I do not begrudge her ease. I would very much like a share of that limitless expanse. I, as is clearly implied, do not sleep so easily. I am writing now in a hotel room. Unfamiliar places make me uncomfortable, restless. This room is no exception. It has that cramped feel of transitory living, and a smell of perfumed antiseptic. It is not as homey as I would like. My own rooms are memories, and anchors. I don’t need to rebuild the map of the clear areas on the floor or worry over the strangers next door. Here I am far too aware of being a guest to easily sleep. Please ignore these complaints, I am circumscribing the truth. It isn’t the discomfort of unfamiliar locations. It is the awareness of my identity. It is the unfamiliar person who is assembling behind my eyes. I cannot keep it away when the lights go out, or when the sounds diminish. It waits behind distractions. It is not me. And it is beginning to abandon me as an inconvenience.
I have been considering this for some while for it has not always been this way. I have attempted to discuss it with my wife, but she was disturbed in such a passive way she ignored a good deal of what I said, and forgot the rest or pretended she had. She can see it though. Sometimes her face will cloud with mild worry. She will probe with questions for which she clearly does not want answers. For her pleasure I evade these questions gently, tacitly stating my distress is minor. I must admit my suspicion I am not entirely sure which aspect of me, my old self or this new intruder, she worries over. I wonder if she wants to be free of me, and my new self may be justification. Or even more troubling, I wonder if she works in collusion with my intruder. Again, I have written wrongly: the intruder would seem to be me the other would be almost eternal where I am fleeting. I am well aware of the philosophical history behind this idea, but Aristotle and Pythagoras can’t help me.
It is not minor, this splitting of my identity. Nor do I think it is innocent. I am willing to state it has been calculated. My life has been changed by outside agents. My empiricism, my shield of aesthetics, was an illusion. Experience has worked against me. I sense the infinite as if the invisible chasms of space, the whole universe, had opened up on every side forever reducing and expanding. I have unpleasant anxieties about the stability of the floors under my feet like walking across an ancient and decaying bridge of brittle planks and fraying ropes. These are simply similes. How can I write this about my mind? How do I report this to you with comparisons for it seems incomparable?
My isolation, my solitude, has become a thorn. This is a peripheral occurrence of the extinguishing of many long cherished comforts and abstractions. I have heard that when Howard Carter was opening the chambers of King Tutankhamen’s tomb he saw some ostrich feathers that had lain untouched for 3000 years. They were, for a short second as they had always been, but beneath his new breath and the air of this latter world, the feathers collapsed, they disintegrated. Imagine this as my former sense of things. The winds that strike me are profound. Unfortunately, I do not seem to have the integrity of a feather. The transformation is a sentence I have earned in my indulgence. I have long been a candle claiming responsibility for the dawn and the dawn is progressing to a sunrise, very shortly all my claims will be revealed as lies. Even I can’t begrudge it.
If you do not know me (whoever should come to read this) I am somewhat well known as an art critic, philosopher, and historian. A profession I was very proud of. It is the poorest of professions. I am neither a historian, nor am I an artist. I tend to think history may be a bit of an error, and I have never made a piece of art (in fact I am only beginning to reckon what art is) in my life. I offer opinions. That is what I do. I use the “halo effect” to advantage. I know names, movements and periods in regard to art. I was once referred to as “the art maven” and this familiar but dismissive title has become too sticky. There are endless papers written in specialist’s language about the propriety and theory of criticism. I have written some of them. I have also written at length on aesthetics and attached myself to various philosophers and antique opinions. Who doesn’t love Descartes and his “cogito?” I believe Dante describes the situation of attachment to aesthetics in the inferno (under the guise of opportunism): “I saw a banner there upon the mist. Circling and circling, it seemed to scorn all pause. So it ran, on and still behind it pressed a never-ending rout of souls in pain.” Of course this can be seen in every movement or philosophy in art- the opportunist's banner whose signs and insignia are every changing. Let me repent anonymously here. I am very well paid for my articles, lectures, even consultation. I considered myself a bridge between the esoteric and exoteric, a translator of the mystical artist to the public. A translator who approved or disapproved of what he was translating. Of course I am educated, I have my proper degrees, but I no longer have the vanity to claim my employment is due to a superior eye or deeper understanding.
That is terrible. It is stupid. “The eye” of the discerning! How superstitious! What nonsense! Croce, perhaps, opened this door. No I won’t assign blame. It is shifty to do so. I am the fool.
Allow me to expand on Shakespeare “In the land of the blind the one eyed are kings.” Consider this, if the land of the blind has no one eyed to be kings, who is left? Would it be unlikely to assume that one or several of the blind might delude themselves into thinking they were seeing, or even suggesting a certain elite “blind sight”? When this “blind sight”, this terrible example of opposites together, is assumed and given a proper language, even an expansive Ptolemaic explanation, is it an error to consider that it is believed? In the land of the blind the blind become kings. Now consider this, these blind become tyrants, fragile tyrants whose reported powers must remain elusive, occult, because examination of their powers will prove they are only blind men. One last consideration: among the blind are born those with full sight, what happens when they appear?
I am a charlatan. I did not believe this at the start. But this is the truth. I am not feeling sorry about this; it seemed like the truth when I flaunted my “blind sight”. If this scenario of the blind is in any way a model of the world of art, then let me answer what becomes of the sighted children when they appear. They are blinded. Somehow, it seems, there are some who evaded this blinding. Those unblinded fugitives have found a cure to our blindness; they developed their own sights that no socket, full or empty, can evade. It is sight, alive, and woe to the blind. This blind man has been administered three real visions, and now my sight is overwhelming me. It is dismissing me.
The first time my eyes opened was at a private showing of a painting.
I have many, many friends and acquaintances. One of my closer and more insistent friends had discovered a new young artist. These discoveries are very important to the aimless and those lacking talent; they believe it implicates them with the arts. It shows they too have the certain sensitivity that makes one an artist, even if they do not produce art they can perceive, and make in a professional sense, artists. As a professional critic I had to deal with such individuals whose wealthy circles tend to include both opportunists and actual artists. These are my clients. I must instruct them as doctrine demands, who is and who isn’t a real artist, who is and who isn’t innovative, what is and what isn’t art. My criteria were, admittedly, strange in retrospect and seem to apply to other matters, such as who is the artist, what was his history, socially what role does he play, what was the deeper sophistic meaning of his work, is he a product of structuralism, anti-structuralism, and importantly for me was his work malleable enough for me to use in my inflated descriptions.
My friend was manic when she called. It was not the usual purring that underlies the poses and cadences one affects when they are being sophisticated; it was breathless and quick speech. I had assumed she had found a new boy toy. These were usually mediocre to bad art students whose feigned moodiness had captured her easy excitement. I was tired of these calls but I owed this friend a great deal, and she knew it. It became implicit in our conversation that this would take care of my debts. I recall I fretted a bit to make the weight of this favor more impressive. The bargaining and haggling in the American social Bazaar is very subtle and filled with complaint. She assented to the leveling of my debts so I agreed to meet her young artist. I would magnanimously give him advice, perhaps gratify myself with an expansive filibuster on art, and then leave as pompously as I arrived.
I was late for our meeting. I had been having dinner with my brother. I was tired and some small degree possessed by the spirits of three martinis. My friend ushered me into her ostentatious apartment. I made brief small talk in her lobby, before she dragged me into her reception area.
It is the usual formula in a meeting to talk to the artist, allow them their say, after which you will view the work, and then analyze or opinionate based on their intentions in comparison with their skills. At some point an invitation to talk just below the surface of the truth is given. I will say something leading, such as: “What would you like to do with your art?” This is an invitation to discreetly discuss one’s greed and ambition. It allows me a chance to sense their chances of success, in the rather brutal but grinning world of art. After which I remain noncommittal pointing out strengths and vices in the arts. It is generally the case in a private meeting to refer to the “art world” as an outside entity, a tyrant, whereas in a crowd, with plenty of shielding you can make elaborate rude commentary on behalf of the “art world”. I was preparing to offer my private treasons and excuses in their usual form.
I was never given the chance to mount my bench. I was marched in front of the painting directly. (See painting in photo section).
It was not a large painting, perhaps 36”x 30”. At first it appeared to be a young girl. I recall he later said she was supposed to be Sudanese. She was wrapped in a wrinkled hood. The background showed an angry, stormy red sky over jagged hills. It was like the aftermath of a great fire. It was well painted, nicely composed: skillful. I was pleasantly surprised. I remember thinking this artist may be worth consideration.
My gaze shifted slightly as I was making to turn and address the artist whose presence had been on my periphery since I entered the room. It was then the painted girl moved.
Allow me to clarify. I had been looking at her from about a foot away. Her expression was placid. It appeared the eyes were painted to be unusually penetrating, but her expression was calm. When my eyes moved a fraction, and her expression changed. The face became tinged with anger. It seemed to glare. I stared back at the painting and the girl’s face changed again: she smiled subtly. I could feel my breath become short and unsteady; my heart beat rapidly and I began to perspire. Such was my physical response, mentally I felt as if suddenly I discovered I had been dreaming, I even tried to rouse myself. A wave of panic and exaggerated emotion crept behind my eyes. I wanted to weep or laugh hysterically, but I could do neither. I just teetered suspended on the precipice of that moment waiting. What I was waiting for was very clear, I was waiting for more. I was not disappointed. The more I stared the more the painting transformed. The face became placid again but then the clouds began to move, and ghost faces mingled in the yellow hood around her head. Again her face called my attention. Her features became clouded and indistinct. Within that cloud a muddy checkerboard pattern emerged. I sought to regain her face with surprising urgency. I felt security in her face in comparison with that muddy pattern. That pattern seemed wrong, wrong as only a dream or hallucination can seem wrong. I hunted for her face and was met with more than I could bear. Abruptly the face reemerged, but it was not just her face. It became a Proteus of faces which my mind chased. Faces replaced that one face, and no feature settled. Her features recombined and displayed an ever changing population staring from beneath her yellow hood.
I was terrified and amazed. How long the painting and I stared at one another I cannot write and is perhaps irrelevant. I suspect it would not have ever ended. Its transformations would never cease, and I began to wonder if the painting wasn’t an oracle or clock showing all faces that were, are, and will be. I stepped away in sudden panic realizing the painting might become a mirror. Looking back I should have wondered something more troubling: those faces were not, are not, and will never be. I may have been looking at impossible people. Their only life was granted by my eyes and my breath and their potential population was infinite. Eventually the artist spoke: “Did you warn him about the painting?”
I stumbled backward staring around the painting, still very tempted to look at it. Finally, I murmured, “What? What does that mean?” My sense of alarm was rising. “Have I been drugged?”
My friend laughed, she grabbed my arm comfortably and led me to the sofa. “No, no, of course not, I haven’t done that to anyone in years.” That bland joke, attempting to hint at some false daring or previous mischief, helped me back to myself. It was the language of deluded exchange in our finite world; it was a petty, banal (effective), effort to belittle the experience of the painting. I needed ground and that joke, which was all such a cliché of naughtiness, provided it. How foolish of me to confuse the ground with hot air.
“Isn’t Aaron’s painting fabulous? He claims it doesn’t ever stop, not even when you look away. Isn’t that right Aaron? Aaron please introduce yourself!” My friend was giddy. I could feel giddiness rise in myself. I wanted to praise the young man; I wanted to talk to him. But my fears had not subsided. I am aware that people who are the victims of insult will try to align themselves with those who have insulted them, they will toady and placate and feign secret understandings with their oppressor. This is because contempt is contagious and the insulted do not wish to incur the insults of the several who may be witnesses. I had the unmistakable urge to toady. Believing what I believed I constructed a suit of arrogance for the young artist, I assumed in some yet undetected way I had suffered insult. I quickly defended against a strike that was never administered. I believed he was attempting to better me. I became cold and smug.The young man did introduce himself. He also elaborated on his warning. “It isn’t that the painting won’t stop, it becomes epidemic in the Dionysian sense. It is a divine infection. I asked Marcel to warn you before you looked.” Art is filled with snake oil salesman. Artist statements are full of false claims and polysyllabic words, self aggrandizement, and mysticism. I immediately assigned this young man’s statement to these categories. I was dismissive. I spoke to him with disinterest and vanity. This was a mistake I am willing to admit here. “Aaron” was not a stereotypical artist, nor was he a typical artist. He was very well kempt, calm but quickly interested, and free of melodrama. He was a normal man. He did not wear his eccentricities on his sleeve, nor did he otherwise flaunt them. I could ignore him in a crowd of three. This does not mean he was without mystery. He exuded mystery. It was clear upon first glance his mysterious qualities were difficult, well maintained, and honestly, too much work to penetrate. This reckoning of mystery as normality was more generous and apt then I could claim to have made before I saw his painting. It was an infection. What I had assumed was artistic bragging was, in fact, a clear statement. Having been a liar and dealt with liars for so long, I assumed it was the rule of statements. I was wrong.
Feeling bested, although not admitting it, I later read up on Dionysian “epidemics”. I would use this trivia as a tool to later impress should I meet Aaron again. I would attempt to refute his claims. Being a historian, even of art, I was very familiar with Dionysos, through viewing Renaissance paintings, through reading Nietzsche, and I had also examined vases and other work attendant to this Greek god. I am by no means an expert. Of course, I considered him in the sense portrayed by Nietzsche, or painted by Caravaggio, or DaVinci. This god was a symbol or an emblem. The “epidemic” description was something different. By the time I learned of it, the epidemic was being felt and I could not refute it. An epidemia was an “arrival on the land” or to “be upon the people”, otherwise called an epiphany- a manifestation. It referred to Dionysus’s arrival and the spread of madness before him. He was the infectious god.
Aaron was claiming his painting to be a germ of madness, or divinity. I must admit while I stared at it, that is how it seemed, but I did not account for its more subtle powers after had I left its presence. It takes time to understand the infestation of madness. It seems so familiar, so close, so unbelievable, and so far, all at once, ignorance seems preferable. Dismissal is the hope tried by all who are over come. Like a child with blankets over his head warding off the forces menacing him, I tried to blind myself to what had been awakened. I even wished to scoff. It was somehow galling to peripherally notice it was my subject and slave, Art, which had quickened the madness. I could not scoff as it was, even then, even through my denial, it was true: he had induced a divine infection.
Although he was a pleasant enough young man, something disturbed me. And as I’m sure, Dear Reader, you will sympathize I assumed he was the source of disturbance. I did not assume I had been given the first dose of self disgust, I assumed he was disturbing. I was a king among kings, a being of free will; I had seen it all and was trusted for my opinions of all of it. When not adequately self assured I could reach back and rely on venerable tradition, greater authority, on which I could depend. But this intruder had dismissed it all, seemingly without even being aware of it. It is difficult to be magnanimous with a mouth full of manure.
In such a deliberately intimate, enclosed, room I had little to say or do. I could not lose myself in bookshelves, or foreign ornaments. The room was barren and so one could discuss art without distraction. The best I could do was maintain a smirk and pretended to be jaded. Though somewhat hysterical my friend was an astute woman. By the look in her eye I knew she was aware of my discomfort; she knew I was overwhelmed. Not that it was hard to notice, my clothes were soaked with sweat.
They spoke amiably of several subjects, sometimes art but not conspicuously. I remained aloof, acting as if I were listening. I must confess Aaron was a very nice and subdued fellow. But I would not bow to him. In Caravaggio’s day, artists, even friends, would pass in the streets without acknowledging the other, without “raising their hats”. It was a sign of power, a submission to those above, to lift your hat first. Friends did not speak for years waiting for a hat to be tipped their way. I was behaving in this fashion. The truth is it was my desire to tip my hat but I was immersed in habitual games of position and could not guess when it might be time to be humble, even when I was humbled.
It is still a question in my mind: did I like the painting? Where can I start? What criteria do I use? The painting, as far as technique is concerned was good enough, but the paint was apparently, meant to be dismissed. The pigments were truly a “medium” a bridge to some other device. What was I to gauge? Was it art? Not in the terms I was taught. But what was it? This was some time ago, and I have gone out of my way, to avoid the young man, though he has twice crossed my path.
I have seen another work since that evening. It seemed to carry the same epidemia as the portrait. Thinking on this next work makes me hesitate, for it was desirable. I wish for more of the work. That probably doesn’t clarify the sentiment, or give it enough thrust. I am well aware of how melodrama has become the relay of sentiment in writing and speech. It is repulsively telling how removed we are from the living. I saw the next work I will describe in a gallery. Looking back it couldn’t have been placed in a worse setting.
My wife and I were invited to a not-so-intimate intimate gathering of artsy friends in Seattle. The invitation was extended by my good friend, Martin. Martin is a respected collector, with unusually fashionable taste. His collections toured very widely in Europe, and rarely in America. His pieces are select. Only the best and most lucrative are gathered to his collections.When the invitation arrived, we excused ourselves from any other engagements, and made arrangements to attend Martin’s soiree. This was certain to be a gala event. The invitation, which I have saved as a souvenir (and have committed to memory in pathetically religious adoration) read:

Dear Friends,Please make yourselves available for a truly profound viewing experience Sept. 15, ----. What you will witness will forever change your perspectives. Please R.S.V.P at the attached address no later than Sept. 2 Marty

It would be a habit for me to write in a smug tone about how I craved for social attention and the deferred opinions of the vulgar. Art venues have a very wicked habit of luring the vulnerable to pettiness and pretense. I did not care about art. Art as I look back was an opportunity to not only point out the emperor was naked, but to point it out while I was naked. I was not insincere when I thought I was an art lover, I just mistook what art was. The above opportunity to "change my perspectives" seemed like a beacon to either debunk an upstart, or attach myself to new and improved art. Which ever the situation, I would need to get some prior information. My persona would need preparation. I would like to clarify; this bogus persona was not perpetual. I was normal and good with friends-friends with little interest in art. It was professional. It was going to work, and loving my job which was, admittedly, to promote vanity, it was to create a false demeanor.
Gathering information was not easy. No one knew anything. Martin, much like the rest of the certified professionals in our society, was (I was going to write gregarious but as this is a confession of sorts let's be a bit more frank) a loud mouth. Bragging is part of the reward in art. Rarety and who owns what is most rare needs gossips, and deliberate information leaks. This is very profitable. Most people know this advertising tactic through tabloid news on Hollywood celebrities. Auction houses and private collectors use these same tactics, but in a more elitist setting. So you can imagine how strange it was that nothing was leaked. The usual channels of information were untrafficked. The only thing that was offered and this so generally it was believable, was that Marty had not seemed himself in the last few months. By report he seemed nervous, or under stress. He had lost some weight, he was distant. This up coming opening was beginning to ring alarm bells. It was not advertised in any journal or art periodical. It had not been previewed to critics, or reporters, it was by invitation only, which is not the most successful marketing stratagem. What is more I had had the unenviable experience of touring the gallery where the opening was going to be held. It was a smaller venue, usually dealing in reproductions and decorative art, that is, "schlock." The crowd would not be a very large one.
Just before the opening some word leaked out, unreliable word I should add, that Martin had invested a huge sum of money in the artist and the subsequent marketing of the artists work. It was intimated it would be very unusual.

September 15th arrived, and our anticipation was to be sated. We had no idea how much so. I was prepared, so I thought for every variable. If it was good, bad, or other, I was ready. I had dozens of things to say. I researched regarding every rumor and hint (sparse as they were). I suspected the oddity of this event would attract the most important of my peers. I was not going to be unprepared.
When we arrived, formally dressed and hungry, my wife and I were quickly greeted and ushered in the front door. It was somewhat ominous. The gallery was closed. I usually expect the milling and socializing of the cultured spilling out into the streets at an opening event. Cocktails (once literally a cocktail with the feather in it) and exotic snacks with various French and Italian (even Russian lately) names could be expected. But we were ushered like fugitives in the underground to the back offices and then to the door of the basement. There were several people already waiting and clearly annoyed. I did not know anyone, and what is worse, they were dressed very casually. We seemed like caricatures of a 1920’s fat cat and his wife. It struck me then, very forcefully, this was not going to be about me, unless of course I made an ass of myself.
More people entered, until two rooms were filled in only security lighting. Someone made an inappropriate joke relating our circumstance to that of victims of the Nazis in a boxcar. This was offensive for many obvious reasons, but was also jarring because it voiced a certain quiet fear that some dangerous trick had been pulled. Very quickly, when expectation is not met, small but strong paranoia can appear. We were very relieved when the basement door was opened and no Panzers stormed out. An 18 year old usher in a red vest was all that emerged. She didn’t say anything just smiled a self conscious, but not bashful smile, and waved us in.
The basement was very spacious, and a longer descent than I had expected (for some reason I was thinking of the basement stairs of a duplex I rented when I was 23.) I was a bit heavier then and I could feel 40 pounds of luxury bouncing and jouncing stair by stair restrained only by tuxedo. This seemed another demerit from my dignity. At the bottom three sets of risers, like those used in elementary school chorus recitals, were set up in an arc before a white curtained wall. There were only two spot lights directed at the curtain as illumination for the room, but they were sufficient.
After asking the usher, someone courteously called out “stadium seating”, and everyone gave a forced chuckle. My wife and I sat together, a pair of sore thumbs. I was very conscious of my dress and becoming more so by the minute. This tell seemed to be broadcasting. My clothes were accidentally revealing more of my pretence than I could have dreamed. I was an imposter, but regarding what? My wife, I should add, was only momentarily embarrassed, and then preceded about her business. She is far less an imposter.
The seating ended up elbow to elbow, not very comfortable, I assure you. Those risers were not cushioned, and before all was said and done I became very aware of the bones in my buttocks.Finally Martin entered the room, and made his way before the curtain. He was followed by a very tall lanky fellow. This new man seemed entirely made of elbows. Martin looked well, healthy, even strong. He was dressed in a casual jacket and jeans, and seemed very excited. He was expectant, and assured, I could not help but forget my silly clothes. Something was really going to happen. My instincts flared and I became excited as if by contagion. This was not going to be hype or a prank.
Martin made speeches before everything. To get a glass of water Martin would ask for silence in a room and describe how important water was to one and all. For this brief moment he seemed reluctant. He said, after uncharacteristic stammering, “Dear friends, thank you so much for coming to this unusual event. You may be questioning the wisdom of the choice to attend, as rough as it is. Regretfully I can’t tell you much about what is to come, I mean both here and after you go to your warm homes. You won’t see anything quite like this again. It is a shame, and also a blessing. You will not believe what will happen when this curtain is parted. So without further indulgences, let me present the artist, Mr. David _____.”
The tall man of elbows awkwardly made his way to the front of the curtain. I was expecting a self referential speech describing the validity of his work, first through art history than some anti-classical pinnacle. At least, I thought this in part, the excitement had not waned to fully accept this idea.
In his right hand he held the handle on a plastic box. A lens peered out amid the usual swirls of design that accompany up to the minute electronic appliances. He did not speak, he gestured and said a half word to the two young men controlling the lights. “Wait!” this sharp bark made all of us jump. The artist made an earnest face as he adjusted his plastic device. He smiled up at us blushing, I believe, “That wouldn’t have created a very good performance if I made you all blind.” I became uneasy. For a brief moment with the Sudanese girl, I thought I was going blind.
The lights went out, and the tall man turned on his plastic box, what I first thought was a portable projector, but I do not think this now. For a moment I feared I was about to endure a performance piece. The curtains were pulled aside and what appeared behind it, revealed by the indirect light of the box was blank wall.
“If you all direct your attention to the center of the beam of light” which he promptly directed to the blank wall, “I would like to begin my tale.”
In the center beam of light, isolated, an island of vision surrounded by the geometric lightening provided by our eyes, was a painting. In a moment I will change the form of narrative, as it will better relate what was seen, but for a moment let me describe something jarring. The light was not a projector. The light from the beam was slightly shaky as it was hand held. The painting did not shake. What is more, the painting seemed to spread out in the shaky perimeter. It was something about the nature of the light on the surface of the wall that revealed the painting. As we would later watch his small spotlight travel and unravel his illustrated narrative we realized not only was he traveling this broad surface and using his light to reveal an enormously elaborate painting, but he retread portions and a new painting was revealed where another had been.
I will here switch to 3rd person and try to tell the story we heard it, including descriptions of the illustrations as it was seamless whole.
“Before the Hejira and after the age of the Jamshid who’s starry cup witnessed Kai Khosrau there was a war. Some have said the war was in Khurasan and its hero was Idris, other say it was in Meshed and was at the command of Shab. The tale has been abandoned to whispers and obscure scripts. All the accounts, however, agree it was Shachar the Sabian that secured the victory.”
“Of Shachar I will tell only the end of this war for that is when his wisdom was miraculously revealed. Shachar sat in despair, alone in a field.” Again, this is a combination of the spoken narrative and the paintings as it was slowly revealed. “The war gear of his men were scattered around him. Their final camp site was abandoned litter. Insects claimed the abandoned war prizes, now abused and filthy. Shachar sat still and tired. His once handsome face was leather stretched taut against sharp bones and hollows. The face that was once harsh and proud had been broken by privation, duration, and loss.”
“A short time before he sat Shachar had sent the closest of his lieutenants from him. He released them to try as they may to escape punishment. The war was lost. They would find little left of their villages, or families. The reward for their struggles and loyalty to him would be mourning.”
“On the perimeter of the field the arms of the embracing forest shielded Shachar form sights and sounds not far away. Just beyond the eastern arm of the forest waited Belchir Ibn Melchir and his legions. These armies knew fresh infantry, a sea of foot soldiers all armored and spiny with weapons, generals and the young princes, sons of Belchir Ibn Melchir, eunuchs and servants attended, the priests were there, and the diplomats. They were preparing for a feast day.”
“Belchir Ibn Melchir had sent envois to Shachar’s camp giving detailed instruction for the rites of surrender. Shachar sent back his reply. At the first break of sunlight the following dawn Shachar would present himself to Belchir Ibn Melchir and meet his fate. He would arrive alone, unarmed, standing upright. Belchir Ibn Melchir received the news with satisfaction.”
“Shachar waited in the field, stark and empty, as the sun slipped below the horizon. There Shachar waited, hoping for the sound of birds, or beast. No song from the Archons would be his servitor. He abandoned the hope the angels would deliver him, but perhaps he would receive some comfort from them yet. In bodies of light they mapped the sky. As he had come from dust, so would he return to dust, and the stars would witness this without surprise. In a language he did not know his story too, was written in the heavens. He ran his hand through the dust at his feet and wondered upon which heads he had strode. He thought it likely the dust beneath his feet had once sported crowns, but here it was brought low, hidden under grass and ferns. That field was surely a looking glass that told him the one certain future. “Dust unto dust and under dust to lie, sans wine, sans song, sans singer, and sans end…’”
“He brought his dusty hand before his face, looking at his kin, and he was curious regarding an old question.”
“The sun was nearly gone. The forest could not hide the armies further. The smells of campfires and cooking met Shachar’s nose, and the sky behind the trees glowed. Shachar had not eaten in days, and his head ached from hunger, and his belly turned. He felt slightly sick, but too drained to give this suffering its due.”
“Shachar stood to draw in air, to ease his belly with memories of food. He was met with the stir of his own filth and sweat. He patted himself and clouds of dust poured from him, while his clothes cracked under his blows. He was disgusted by his filth. He became angry with the protuberance of his knobby bones.”
“Flowing not far within the confines of the field was a small but deep stream. Shachar ambled to it with bony angularity, like a door frame under an enchantment to move. He painfully disrobed, and set about bathing. Tomorrow he would transform to dust, but for now he was a man, and water was welcome on his beaten, scarred clay. He would not face Belchir Ibn Melchir clothed in fugitive’s grime.”
“He soaked in the water for a time. His mind was surprisingly free, but also very aware of time. He wished for better moments of ease. He brought his hands to his face, rubbed his eyes, wrung his beard. His pale hands were visible in the star light. In ways they were nebulous, insubstantial, indistinct. He brought his hands close to his eyes, then held them far and said aloud, ‘Perhaps this is their truth.’ To himself he thought, tomorrow if Belchir Ibn Melchir follows custom I will ask this question.”
“He dried in the warm night air. He dried his poorly washed clothes like spinning swords in the old martial exercises. He had difficulty pulling his clothes back on as they were still damp.”“He ate nothing, he had no fire, he did not sleep, he only had the stars. He watched them spin, the fixed and the wandering. They marked time but largely ignored time. Their dance was the concern of men it did not trouble the stars themselves."
"As a boy, he had gone on pilgrimage with his father. They traveled to the Pyramids in Egypt. His father told him stars are not time, but describe time. In those distant fires were maps of all their temples. Those angels were the places of memory, and the visions of their idols, the entire story of man.”
“He believed these stories, but could not discern the memories of his home or temples in those far lights. He wished to take asylum. He would go to Egypt again, he would follow the Milky Way and it would lead him to Troy, or Rome, or Harran. There were so many stars but too many letters for a man to read.”
“The night passed cold and slow. Shachar spent much of the night with his arms up stretched to the sky, watching the silhouette of his hands.”
“Blue tinged the vault of heaven and the stars eased their labors. All but one. The morning star seemed flared and defiant. Sitting close to the horizon it retained resplendence. The sky brightened, and the star remained. Shachar used the star as his beacons he tromped through the grassy field and then the dim forest, to meet his end.”
“He emerged from the forest at the proper moment, for the sun just settled on the tips of the tallest trees. Shachar lost his breath at the expansive vision of war before him. Belchir Ibn Melchir’s legions flowed out before him. Their aim and attention dropped fully upon him. His hoped finally melted away. Standing at the forefront of the armies was Belchir Ibn Melchir. He was on horseback, his head high. Belchir Ibn Melchir was rotund and oiled, clothed in jewels and ceremonial armor. Behind him stood generals, advisors, his thirty sons, and behind them were innumerable men regimented behind flags and totemic insignia. A forest of spears and swords were raised in triumph, and a great roar erupted from all throats excluding Belchir Ibn Melchir. Shachar nearly collapsed.”
“Belchir Ibn Melchir languidly raised his hand and silence descended. Shachar swallowed very hard. A rough swallow. He straightened and stood as if his body remembered pride. He sent his gaze to meet Belchir Ibn Melchir.”
“’Shachar! For you folly will end here, for it is here you will be finally counted wise and sound. For here you have surrendered to the hands of fate. You were as a sheep before the lion, and it is futile for the sheep to struggle so, for God has made them both, and made the lion supreme. But I am more fierce than the lion!’ Belchir savored the sound of his words and spoke them heavily with great gestures. ‘I am also more merciful. Shachar you will not be made an example, for you have many qualities I admire. I will not allow you to be tortured. Your death will be the death of a man, though you now look an animal. Come forward, let my armies see you. We will then take you into custody and execute you, without delay.’ Belchir smiled widely, almost like a spoiled boy.”
“Shachar paused before he replied. ‘Belchir Ibn Melchir. I submit you have triumphed in this war. I agree I am defeated. You have not asked that I bow to you or your generals or armies, and for this I am grateful. Let it never be said Belchir Ibn Melchir is an Emperor without courtesy. Let it never be said Belchir Ibn Melchir does not observe the old traditions and piety. You are the victor and I am the dead. But I would ask one thing of you, and this has been the way of victors for all time. Will you observe the final request of the vanquished?’”
“Belchir Ibn Melchir seemed to have expected this and so grinned. “Shachar, you know these requests have conditions, they are not absolute. I will grant your request as long as it does no harm to me, or my own, and as long as it does not interfere with my more extensive wishes.’”
“’Belchir Ibn Melchir, I do not ask any demands, or reprieve. My request is far more humble than this. My final request is the answer to a question. It is a question of philosophical import.’”
“Belchir Ibn Melchir seemed pleasantly puzzled by this request. His fat thick brows rose high above his wide nose. He laughed a roaring, scornful laugh. ‘Of course, Shachar, I will grant you this. What is your question?’”“’What is the true size of my hand?’”
“Belchir Ibn Melchir laughed so hard he wheezed. His legions attempted laughter in sympathy. He lifted a fatty hand and pointed at Shachar, ‘Measure his hand!’”
“Shachar held up his own hand, ‘No, Belchir Ibn Melchir! That will not answer my question.’ Shachar’s hand was held high and he slowly displayed it to the legions. ‘Consider: when you bring your hand close to your eye it looks large. When you pull your hand away it seems to diminish. Children know this. But I would like to know, as my eyes will not tell me, what is the size of my hand?’”
“Belchir Ibn Melchir’s mouth hung slack. He turned his head with difficulty and looked to his advisors stupefied. His face immediately soured. He roughly ordered a eunuch forward, this was one of his philosophers and advisors. The eunuch bowed, and trotted to stand behind Belchir Ibn Melchir’s horse.”
“’Shachar, the answer to your question is known to me, but it is a small thing! It is beneath my majesty to address a child’s question! But I have granted your request, and so it shall be answered!’ He kicked the eunuch forward. ‘This one will answer your question!’” Belchir Ibn Melchir seemed unduly troubled by his inability to answer such a strange question. Perhaps that mighty army, those wolfish generals, the serpentine sons were not as tightly bound as they appeared. Was that a shadow of unease that darkened Belchir Ibn Melchir’s face?”
“The eunuch seemed very nervous, but he quickly built a long toothed smile. ‘The answer to your question is: your hand is the same size.’ He bowed and began to back away. Belchir Ibn Melchir smiled.”
“Shachar also smiled a sympathetic smile and shook his head in negation. ‘Still you have not answered my question. It is, of course, the same size as itself. This does not answer my question, for it still remains, what is the size of itself? And again, what is the size of my hand?’ Belchir Ibn Melchir, you have given your word, here, before the strength of your armies, to answer my request. Are you unable to grant this? Is this not a disgrace? After all of our violence am I to topple you, and the wits of your ministers and vast armies, with a child’s question. Was this the vulnerability I should have exploited, and stood where you now stand, our positions reversed?’”“Belchir Ibn Melchir shook with rage. He called the eunuch to his side, drew his scimitar, and with a great ponderous swing, cut the eunuchs head from his shoulders. He roughly turned his horse, nearly toppling the animal, and approached his son’s, his generals and his ministers. He held the bloodied scimitar before them. He could taste their rising scorn, their doubts and he knew to crush them with fear, for if he did not the day may rapidly change the balance of power. Murder was very close to the minds of his court-it was their gift, but it must not be turned against him. Belchir Ibn Melchir growled low as he passed in front of his court.
 ‘Do not look at me with blood in your eyes! You dare! Wipe your chops, there is no prey here! You are my prey! You are mine! And so I deem to pass the burden to you! The answer to this question will be found before the noonday sun or I will take the heads and hands of all of you!’ Belchir Ibn Melchir called forth his personal guard and ordered them to stand weapons drawn man to man with each of his generals, sons, and ministers. As one the leaders of the army called forth messengers. These messengers were dispatched with the question to each captain, who then relayed the question down the lines of command until each soldier heard.”
“Shachar became dizzy with a wave of hunger. His head ached, and his eyes watered. He had said all he would to another man on this day.”
“Shachar squeezed his eyes shut until the dizziness passed. The world was amazingly silent. When he opened his eyes, his vision took in a nearly comical sight. All the advisors, all the sages, and warriors, every last man in the vast army stood waving there hands forward and back before their eyes. Every face was quizzical and uncertain.”
“The hours passed and the sun rose. Sweat poured from every brow, not from overwhelming heat, but under the burden or death. The swaying hands did not cease, but varied in speed and angle. Sometimes they would cease moving only to begin again with greater confusion. Even Belchir Ibn Melchir stared at his hand.”
“It seemed a spell was cast. The legions of faces had lost their liveliness. The armies of hands were becoming still. Like the cessation of disturbance in a pool, the actions of the armies slowed. It seemed a trance was falling. Shachar looked up at the sky. It was far from the noon hour.”
I must now return to my narrative to describe the rest. The painting which had unfolded with the traveling light became slightly obscured. It seemed to take on blotches of absence- scotomas. If you suffer migraines you will understand what I mean.
Sight by sight the light exposed the perspective of different soldiers. It seemed as though we blinked, and it took on a new perspective every few seconds. Each time an eye opened a hand appeared in its center and behind, at various points of view stood Shachar. Hands of different shapes and characters popped in and out of our vision, making Shachar the magnetic constant in this parade of perspectives. Shachar was near and then far, but most impressively, he changed under the point of view and social biases of each soldier. He was Shachar in some general way, and in no way a caricature, but some feature in each changing view became emphatic. The transformations that changed Shachar were amazing. In one soldiers eye his tattered clothes became emphatic, in another his starvation, in another he seemed proud, in another he seemed filthy and small. We were given peripheral observations of a man as seen by many men, and it was done with subtlety. It seemed natural. We were allowed to see through the eyes of others to read fear and power of other men-impossible men who did not exist. After a short time it seemed these myriad Shachars were building a composite, a truth, as if we these sights were building the first vision of something ideal. An absolute Shachar seemed to be under construction.
These perceptions were becoming deeply marred with the blotches of absence. Just as something seemed to be entering clarity it was being obscured. For a few moments I thought I was beginning to have a migraine, the effect was so convincing.
The armies continued to look at their hands. The narrative had paused for a moment. The light did not cease to travel the wall, as if imitating our eyes, seeking out something to see. But it could find less and less. And I became somewhat nervous because I was unsure if it was the work or my vision. This kind of suspension is very uncomfortable. It is an unpleasant intellectual rebellion.
The artist continued: “After a time Shachar began to understand the stillness of the army. Still with little hope, but more days and adventures before him, Shachar stumbled away from the still army. After he had walked some short distance, he heard the first howls and cries that initiated a mass panic.” He granted us the illustrative perspective of Shachar, and interspersed this with the blotchy perspective of the mass. “The armies of Belchir Ibn Melchir, including Belchir Ibn Melchir had all fallen into an abstraction. They were tricked into regarding the deceptive nature of vision. They held a mirror to sight. They were lulled to answer one of the forbidden questions. They....” my eyes hurt and seemed to involuntarily cross looking for sight, “…all …” the images were fading even when Shachar was shown, “…went…” suddenly the absence took over and I could not see, I reached out for my wife, “blind.” Had I noticed, and not been ready to panic, everyone gasped and became utterly silent. The spot lights flicked on again.The lanky artist stood before us satisfied and smiling. Behind him the wall was completely blank. We all looked around to ensure our vision, even stupidly measuring our hands.Martin was up in front of the room giddy and gesturing for us to proceed up stairs. Everyone laughed. Like we just stepped off a roller coaster, everyone was tussled. We must have been squirming in our seats, though I must admit, I did not notice any such fidgeting. Someone tried to start applause but, it fell dead. Applause seemed a little inadequate. We may as well have set up barking like seals.
We were escorted upstairs to the main gallery by ushers, and it was then some wine and cheese were served. The artist appeared like some figure from Oz, all sticks and pulleys. Vivaldi was playing, people were milling, but in an unnerving silence. We were all still trapped in that world. We were still with Shachar. After a time a crowd gathered around David and everyone managed to overcome their awe, and sense of awkwardness to ask questions. The evening decayed from there.
I did learn some interesting details, by listening to the questions thrown at the artist. It was his first piece. It was not for sale. It had taken him 12 years to create. After a short time the crowd broke into pairs and the theories began to assemble regarding the plastic box. That is was a projector was one theory, another was that box was a flashlight of sorts, but with various colored lights that reflected or were absorbed, and these lights revolved. I thought these were unsatisfactory ideas, and still do. Too many aspects of the work are left unanswered. And although it is intriguing, I think in the end it is not my concern how he did what he did, but more importantly what did he do? He erased us all. I was not me for a time. I jumped body to body, a ghost. We became swept up in the senses of another, in the sights of other eyes, and for a time we were whatever identity he provided. We were, briefly but with lingering aspects, Shachar, Belchir Ibn Melchir, the sons, the army, other men. But what will not dissipate is the variable Shachar; the multiple visions of Shachar that nearly gave us an ideal, an eternal experience.
I had to leave. Somehow normal people were too bland to endure. Shachar was more real. They seemed less effected by the work than I was, and it felt offensive. I began to feel with some certainly the first feeling of disconnection.
The populations of the impossible never people that radiated from the Abyssinian girl, the shifting characters of painted fiction presented in the story of Shachar that I had just seen (that I had just been) seemed to hint at a depth behind the easy surface of sense. If the universe we inhabit is infinite, this other thing, an impossible universe, is more. ! squared or ! to the ! power. It is participating with shadows, only these shadows are more substantial than granite. Illusions seem to describe the bedrock of truth. Reality, at its best, is incomplete. My sense is these works describe a fact: we are illusions to something more startling. It almost seems like a form of solipsism, or a taste of the Hegelian Absolute.
I complained I was feeling slightly ill so we left the reception. On the ride home we attempted to discuss the work, but my wife became nervous and evasive. It felt like we were trying to discuss something shameful or intrusive, or a violation. I cannot explain this.

There was one further piece I would like to mention. And though I am suspicious of threes for the superstitions surrounding this number, it does feel like there is some uncanny relationship between the pieces.
I was at a funeral. I should mention I am, as is normal I believe, deeply troubled by funerals. Perhaps this is old fashioned of me. They seem due homage. Mourning seems like a properly lonely state, and is honored by reluctance to approach. But the world is has truly become a farce or is it still in the tragic stages? I’ll let Marx or Hegel worry over this. This funeral was a “celebration of life” or so the flyers reported. Flyers for a funeral. It boggles the mind. I am disgusted with the idea of a funeral as a celebration. It is morbid, like a clown face painted on a corpse. If life has been good and gracious, virtuous or honorable, its passing will be terrible for a light is gone. Maybe I am being sentimental, but this seems a decent enough sentiment and I won’t lightly throw it aside. Life should be celebrated as it is lived (or condemned). These should occur during our brief span. Post mortem gaiety seems like a really tacky excuse to have a party, or a show put on for an audience of fellow mourners. It is pathetic the dead can become a platform for attention and vapidity. Leave the dead some dignity!
I write with vehemence about this for a reason. The dead man at the funeral meant little to anyone (myself included). That may be cold to write, but it is true, nonetheless. In most circumstances I would have performed as is expected and acted sorrowful, but I had run out. My sense of doubt had matured into self disgust and disgust for all things like me in my isolated field. When you first catch on to the fraud, the first whiff of your own weakness and pretense, it is the most profoundly irritating experience. When I had first been willing to scorn the pieces of art I have here described I was so solid, and knew all of the rituals and acts around me to be real, but after it seemed the worst farce.
We stood around the coffin as it was being lowered, and everyone chatted. Martinis were passed around. It was a monstrous coffin. As if ironic or a joke, it was covered in tinsel and garlands and hundreds of bottle caps. It looked like it was dressed as a gypsy for Halloween. I felt my face scrunched in disgust, and I could not unknot it. In this well manicured graveyard, silent and still, even solemn, we stood out like a glittering pimple. It was like watching the most desperately resentful teenagers crying out for attention. Each mourner was talking and laughing a little louder than their neighbor. One man wore a Technicolor kilt, another man was in flamboyant drag (can’t drag sometimes be subdued?) One woman dressed like she was just arrived from a swingers convention, all in holey fishnet and mesh, and I assure you she was not someone you want to see in fishnet and mesh with holes. This display of scandal might be forgivable if this was teenagers, or even twenty three year olds. But our youngest mourner was 38, our eldest was in his early seventies. This was all false.
In a moment I realized I did not want to stay and would not stay. In mid sentence I strode away from some shrill harpy and set off across the graveyard. It was Scrooge like, after seeing such cold self interest I suddenly had the urge to sense some human feeling. My head felt swollen and my eyes ached. People of a class and culture whom I had striven to join were transforming before my eyes. They were like the frightening puppets on Mr. Rogers. Every face had some “Lady Elaine” quality, or the worst of Venetian Carnival masks, elongated and heavily accented with makeup and paint and shiny grease. They were spangled monsters, twisted people. Perhaps this is all subjective, or perhaps they were cells wracked with disease. I was having the godfather of anxiety attacks.
I was jarred into some reality, or some more calm state, by a simple sight. People. Real people, plain, dull, people. It occurred to me the funeral was unpeopled, a bunch of empty coats. The mourners were behaving in some alien manner and it was very lonely. When you are in a crowd of empty men you suffer the effects of isolation, and possibly sensory deprivation. These real people were not here for my entertainment, nor did they petition me to act as audience. They were solid. They had concerns out in the world. A young man stood beside an old man who knelt, both apparently paying respects at a grave. The young man looked somewhat bored and disinterested, but there was also some sense of warding. His young face squinted and searched passively. He was here for the old man, it was apparent. The old man was hunched forward, sitting on his knees. He was concentrating on something.
They were straight ahead of me, so I kept on my way, and was prepared to quickly sneak a gaze at whatever was happening then leave them in peace as I went to find my car.
The old man was drawing on a small tablet. The young man, and this may be generous, he looked about 16, watched me walk up with some interest. The old man did not shift a hair as I passed.
I had to catch a glimpse of what he was drawing. This was unusual and my instincts informed me to keep alert. Something about this moment seemed portentous, and far more “magical” than anything they had attempted at the sham funeral.
I paused and looked over the man’s shoulder from a respectful distance. The drawing was beautifully done and very simple. It was a portrait of a young woman, face front, neither beautiful nor ugly. He was drawing in pastels on what looked like an old Fisher Price child’s chalkboard.
I spoke quietly to the young man. “I’m sorry, very sorry to bother you, but may I ask what your father is drawing?”
The young man looked away with disinterest while he spoke, as if the act of communicating made me safe, or he had sized me up and I was not worth barring. “He’s my Grandpa. He does this every week. He makes me bring him here on Sundays. This is my Nana’s grave and he’s a sketch artist. He draws her.”
I looked over the old man’s shoulder again, and saw he clutched a tattered black and white photograph of the girl in the hand that clutched the chalkboard. The drawing was far more lively than the photo.
In art you often hear hyperbole regarding the effects of a work. Everyone attributes some voodoo and magical other worldliness to simple drawings. It validates them (both work and observer) in some petty way. I am aware of this and I would like to communicate I am not suggesting this silly superstitious pose when I say the work was better than the photograph. The color would lend “betterment” if nothing else. But there was more than just the addition of color to quicken the picture. The face was different, it resembled the photo but was not the same, and the difference was subtle, more expressive. Certain of the facial muscles were flexed that lent a “telling” quality to the face.
“Again, I’m sorry, but do you think your grandfather would mind if I watch him draw? I am very interested in art and his work is beautiful. I truly do not wish to intrude but it is remarkably beautiful.”
The young man squinted down at his grandfather and put forward my request in what sounded like Italian, but I do not know for certain, it could have been Portuguese. The young man answered with as much disinterest as before, “Sure he won’t mind, he doesn’t even know we are here. PAPA! This man wants to watch you!” The old man grunted but continued without interruption. I drew closer, careful to stay out of his light. His hands were steady and always in motion, but not ever frantic. It was fluid and graceful drawing. He applied each detail with careful but certain attention. He knew what to do with clarity, but he was cautious in application. Each hair was present, each flush. Some aspects were eerie.
As I watched I became aware of how the blood supply would have colored her face, blushing the tip of her nose to the bridge. Hidden aspects of her physiology and anatomy were navigated and added as a light smoky blue tracking around the thin tissues around her eyes, or the cracked pink of her lips and the pale skin that circled and then radiated toward her nose and the sides of her chin.
As he drew he mumbled, sometimes chuckling, sometimes it sounded ironic, or even righteous, but the silences were painful. When he stopped mumbling it felt tragic, as if his trance was coming close wakefulness, and the knowledge the face he presented was a meanness, or trick But he would dive deep again, and pick up the strains of the mumbling.
He nagged at the picture with his pastels and with the eraser. When one feature seemed impossible to correct he moved onto another, only to return to the previous feature and alter it in some subtle way. I thought I was watching a perfectionist, and it brought to mind the image of a sculptor who, ever dissatisfied with one angle or another of his masterwork, chips away at it until all he has left is chips and powder.
I misunderstood. I watched for nearly an hour before I did understand. The drawing of the young face I had first seen had evolved, it had aged. With small steady progress he was animating the face. Her mood had darkened from the first version I had seen, her face had become more angular and stark. As I came to this realization others quickly followed. His mumbling and grunting were in time to the changes of the face. He was reliving her.
He continued, and I did not grow tired of watching. His humming dialogs rode a pendulum of moods. At times the face became lovely, at other moments plain, or very expressive. It was angry, disdainful, happy, sly, and worried. In an extraordinary feat he drew her face in deep sorrow, I knew it to be mourning, and yet it was here most lovely. Her pleasures and sorrows took turn dominating her face. With mastery he aged her. He did not use a guide. He did not have further photographs or reference, only the clarity of his memory.
His mumbling became less frequent. The woman was fairly old. That might be incorrect, she was worn. The most terrible sorrow, to touch her face had marked it and was not diminished though other expressions passed beneath it. Along with this, some wrong had settled into her features. Some corruption that cannot be misidentified appeared as slight hollows in her cheeks, and eyes, and a slackening of her cheeks, which did not have enough substance to become jowls. She thinned, her eyes became large as if in frightened realization, and then they became tired, sunken, weak. Her decline was terrible and my throat ached. I felt the muscles in my chin tense and the corners of my mouth arched down to camouflage the possibility of weeping.
The old artist began to weep. From the angle behind him I could see his jaws clench like a pulse the closer he came to her death. And then the moment of her death appeared in a series of colors too easily placed to believe. Less than a dozen strokes of chalk and she was dead. The face was barren, and terrible. The muscles evacuated tension and the eyes …what other term can be used but dead? Her eyes were dead, that horrible unfocused, sunken, vacancy that is apparent in the eyes only with death.
The old  man wept unabashedly. He drew a handkerchief from his pocket wiped his tears and quietly spoke, but I do not know what he said. The phrase wasn’t addressed to me. I am content not knowing, though I will say it sounded sorrowful or regretful. He took the tear damp cloth, wrapped it around his index finger and marred the picture by smearing a cross over the board. He took a small water bottle from his pocket, poured it over the board, and using the handkerchief cleaned away the face in muddy streaks.
I did not weep, though the feeling offered itself. The old man stood with some strength. When he unfolded he was surprisingly tall. He was several inches taller than me, though I had thought he must be shorter as he drew crumpled over (perhaps because the perspective of the woman was drawn eye to eye, instead of from above, I confused his height.) He carefully folded and placed the soiled kerchief in his pocket. He finally seemed to acknowledge me, with a small, maybe slightly embarrassed, smile.
He patted his grandson on the back before putting his arm around him and they set off. The old man nodded to me in goodbye as they walked off.
I puzzled over this for some time as I stood above the woman’s grave. I wondered what the old man did with his neatly folded handkerchief. Did he simply wash it or was there more to his ritual of cleaning away her image with tears? Did he keep all the soiled kerchiefs, each a history, a body of memory? It didn’t seem unreasonable that he might keep any and every sacrament, as his weekly dedication demonstrated, he made new icons of her to venerate if only for the time he spent near her grave. I considered the idea he did keep a collection of kerchiefs, and it struck me these started to take on some impossible aspects. I wondered if those dirty cloths were all the same memories, and marked the days on a calendar that actually extended beyond her life. I wondered if he altered her life making it more ideal some days and beautiful, or if he ever held resentments that colored her time, or even if he created fictional events to add to her life. I realized the ideas began to resemble my old manner of thinking; I was trying to impose scandal upon him. He had shown me another miracle of art and my habits strained to pollute it, and bring it low.
I realized much of what I deem art was a vain attempt to bring the powerful down, to diminish what was overwhelming and steal its powers. I wanted these strange things to accommodate the small, claustrophobic, world I was inhabited. As with the other art I have mentioned here this last left me bereft of cleverness. It stole away the walls of my habitat. I am confused by what I have seen, but I no longer feel the desire to dismantle wonders to offer my confusion a balm.
I am uncomfortable inside my skin. Treading the familiar grounds and habits of my professional adulthood is unsatisfactory. Seeing the common, the ironic, the disgraceful, feels like I am being force fed something noxious. I may have been fed manna and now TV dinners (or Gallery or Museum Dinners) seem unsavory. Many of the so called graces and all of the expressions made by my intimates or associates sets me scowling (or create a guilt that I am not scowling.) I have seen things that dictate I dismiss fools, and frauds: I can’t help but obey. So here we reach my dilemma. My standards and expectations are ruined, which is something for which I should be grateful. I am grateful but I am left with little. I survive, and survive well enough for it to be seen as to be called luxury, on the corruption of these greater things. I regret to write I love my luxuries even as I see them dismantle wonders. I have also found I love art.
In a profound way, I have been shown an impossible world. The clash between my vices and this undeniable virtue does not seem to alter either abstract, but it is tearing me apart. I mentioned I sense another me is emerging, another self, and this is true. It is not so simple as suggesting I have changed. The arts I have seen have “installed” another man, a better man, inside my head. I want him to win, though it frightens me that I would be swept aside. He might pull apart my world; tear down my structures and theaters. This shabby theatre deserves destruction.

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Werewolves in the Bible...first pass

I have decided to annotate the Bible. This is the third time I am doing this. The first time was to incorporate the Bible, Pseudepigrapha, and any and all legends I could find into my general mythology notes. (For Christians, Jews and Muslims it may be important to note there is a great deal of overlap with Biblical material and mythic material- for example the Biblical interdiction against seething a kid in its mother’s milk, is known to be a mechanism to make one a God in Orphism.) The second time I annotated it was to point out instances where art traditions are evident, and especially art traditions around caves, or subterranean areas (the biblical God is several times depicted as rising from beneath the ground), or art with outsiders or outcasts (like the Rechabites or Kenites.) This time around, I must admit my annotations are a bit adversarial, as I am looking at debunking some aspects of fundamentalism, and some silly ideas regarding acceptance of the Bible as history.  Or history as we generally think of history.

As I have been going through the Bible, I stumbled across some of my old notes. I found that there is a great deal concerning , almost an obsession with, werewolves in the Bible.

This may sound very strange, and certainly not very Biblical, but it is true just the same. Let me clarify my terms here a bit. “Werewolf” may not clearly get the idea across. To spare everyone my usual long winded, pedantic lectures I’ll summarize. People considered “outside”, “strangers” or “aliens” were thought of as estranged, and wild. There were specific rituals that made one “estranged” or a stranger, and some of these were very clear in what exactly “strangeness” entailed. It had to do with murder, cannibalism, and man turning into animals. We can’t think of animals in the terms that we think of them today. Animals had specific magical histories and traits that set them apart. For example leopards and fawns were seen as divine because their spots were thought to be the likeness of the stars. In Egypt the Ba priests wore leopard skins to be heavenly, and among the Greeks the fawn skin was used in Dionysos cults for the same reasons.
So when I say werewolf I am referring to something more than a guy turning into a wolf, though that is included also. To be a werewolf several things had to happen. 1. A murder had to be committed. 2. In most cases this murder is followed by an act of cannibalism. 3. The head hands and feet of the victim are mentioned for special notice, and shown. 4. The appearance of dogs, or wolves, either as a relative to the victim or perpetrator, or signaling that the perpetrator is a fellow wolf. 5. The murderer is known as “the stranger”, “foreigner”, the “outcast”, the “wild man”, and cannot be harmed. 6. Hairiness (that is specifically growing hair to look like an animal, especial if one has red hair. 7. Leprosy (or a white skin disease). 8. Eating honey from bee hives found in dead bodies (see Samson or Saxo Grammaticus’ Amleth). 9. Rams, especially the shoulder blade of a ram appears as a puzzling but important element but also shoulder blades are a strangely persistent mythic element.

Okay this sounds unorthodox enough. It is, however, all connected. Let’s take number 7, leprosy,  from the list above as a jumping off point. Several places in the Bible mention lepers. There is mention of people becoming lepers, and what to do when one becomes a leper (that is how to treat leprosy.) To be clear about the terms, the Biblical Hebrew does not note leprosy from other skin diseases, notably those that cause white flaky skin. Flaky white skin, whiteness of skin, was seen as a signal, a malady of sorts, but a magical malady. Pausanius mentions a battle close to Delphi, in Greece, where the soldiers covered themselves in white flour, or powder and attacked at night. The enemy forces believed they were besieged by ghosts or demons. This way of thinking of whiteness was very wide spread over a very long period of time (still ghosts and “supernatural” descriptions are white or pale.). But if we take this to Greece and Rome we’ll get a better idea of what is meant by “leprosy” or white skin diseases. In Greek the word is “Lepo” the word indicating whiteness and white skin disease. In Latin we are given a clearer understanding of the word. “Lupus” means white skin disease and is still used today to describe a disease whose symptoms include flaking skin and white patches. As may be noticed, “lupus” also means wolf. This relationship of white and wolf is very wide spread. In Germanic, and other Indo-European languages (including Latin and Greek) the term “alb” means white, as in reference to the snow covered “alps” or the white cliffs of Dover giving Britain the Latin name Albion. The word appears in Germanic and Scandinavian languages as “alb”, “alf” and “ulf”, meaning white, elf and wolf. In Scandinavian traditions elves are not small spritely things but stranger Gods of the light and subterranean darkness.

The whiteness was not a stand alone issue, and it had nothing to do with the germ theory of disease. Leprosy, that is werewolfism, was the result of some act. Plato notes “it is told of the sanctuary of Lykaian Zues (wolfish Zeus) in Arcadia, namely, that he who tastes one bit of human entrails minced up with those of other victims is inevitably transformed into a wolf.” From other sources it is known the “he who tastes” was ritually a shepherd, and the victim a shepherd boy. This story goes back far earlier than Plato. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, not only is there a wild man, Enkidu, but the Goddess Inanna is accused of turning her lover, a shepherd, into a wolf that is torn apart by dogs. To kill a man, and eat him made one a wolf. Now let’s look at an example of this in the Bible. The account in Exodus of the Jews escaping Egypt is an account of werewolfism. It must be recalled one of the Pharaoh’s emblems was the shepherds crook. Without getting into the events of the Passover (though extremely import to this issue) we’ll recall the Pharaoh’s first born son dies as the “angel of death” passes over. At which point the Jews are told to leave Egypt. As they leave, God has it as a sign that the dogs were silent. That is no dogs barked at the Jews. This may seem like a strange but unclear thing. First let me say that the dog used as pets in Palestine at this time was very wolf like, not very dog like. Second, it was a folk tradition that dogs do not bark at their own. In other words the dogs didn’t bark because the Jews were “fellow citizens of wolves”. And what is more they were being estranged, that is cast out of the city. This is important, inside the confines of a city vs outside was the signal of man’s domain or “the wild” or the “desolate places”. It may seem like I am reaching a bit here to connect werewolfism to a Biblical story. So let me mention another version of this story known among the Romans and mentioned by Pliny the Elder. According to Pliny there were two leaders among the Jews Moses and a character named Hierosalemneus (Jerusalem), and they and a few followers were kicked out of Egypt because they had Leprosy. At the time this Roman account written, what it meant was unclear to the Romans and they thought it was meant as a derisive statement about the Jews. But they did not invent the story, nor change any details though they were garbled. The two accounts have a common source, and refer to the same thing. The Roman account is explicit and emphatic, where the Biblical account needs some context, and is idiomatic. It should be noticed that among all the werewolf accounts, estrangement is present. The afflicted become estranged, outcast, or separated. Often they are termed “strangers”, or “outsiders” (literally meaning outside the walls of a city). In some instances, like among the Rechabites, they literally lived outside the city walls to maintain their holiness.

Let’s look at another aspect of this werewolfism. Among the legal and ritual directions given in the Pentateuch can be found the ritual procedures to create priests and High Priests. The priest must participate in the sacrifice of a bull. Then (and keep this in mind) blood from the sacrifice is placed on his ear, thumb, and big toe. To “purify” the leper the leper must shave his head (that is remove hairiness) then, without performing the sacrifice, blood from the sacrifice is placed on his ear, thumbnail and big toe. In other words the priest has to commit a sin before he can be purified. The priest has to participate in a killing. The leper is already under the “curse” of murder. There is a difference that should be noted. The priest sacrifices a bull, which is meant to stand in for another, human, victim, while the leper uses a lamb. (Oh check Leviticus 8 and 14 for this stuff.) these different animals signify something important and unsaid in the text. Animal sacrifices are stand ins. They are not random choices or favorite food items. To choose a specific animal for sacrifice means a specific victim is implied. Likewise they are not only killed specifically but cooked specifically, notably boiled, but in accounts from other places and times both boiled and broiled- in a tripod kettle. What is more is the victim is slain in an act to “purify” a state called “unclean.” Unclean does not mean dirty. Unclean means holy to the point of poisonous. The implements of rituals considered in close contact with God were “unclean”. In other words, lepers were not seen as dirty and diseased, this is a modern idea. They were seen as frighteningly, dangerously, cursed with holiness. The purification was to restore them to the company of living men. I say living because they were is some sense considered dead or even resurrected, but not quite among the living or reborn.  (Adoption and reinstating the mistakenly dead type of  rituals are important here but may be a bit of a tangent.)

As I mentioned it is important to keep in mind the blood on the ear, thumb and toe of the “purified”, or priest. These blood spots are references. Like circumcision is a reduced form of completely removing the male genitalia, this is a reduced form of something more gruesome. It will be recalled in 1 Samuel 5.2–7 the story of the statue of the god Dagon. The statue is found fallen before the Ark, its head and hands severed across the threshold of the temple. Or the story of Jezebel, who is eaten by dogs, whose only remains are her head, hands and feet (Ahab whose blood is licked by dogs is also of note here.) This emblem of murder and cannibalism, the remains of head, hands and feet are very wide spread over a long period of time. In Greece, the story of Thyestes and Atrius recounts how Thyestes’ children, torn from the alter of Zeus, are slaughtered, boiled and broiled in a kettle, and without Thyestes knowledge served to him as a meal. He was later shown the head hands and feet of his children to reveal his crime. A similar story occurs with Arcadian King Lycaon (the wolf king whose sons are all changed into wolves) who slaughters a young boy (sometimes his grandson) and attempts to serve them to the Gods at a feast. The boy is boiled and broiled in a tripod kettle. Likewise in Arcadia a ritual was practiced wherein shepherds would gather and eat an umble stew. One piece of meat supposedly from a shepherd boy (archeological remains have only come up with sheep and goat bones at the areas of ritual sacrifice so it was likely only said to be a boy) was in the stew. The unlucky recipient of this piece of meat had to leave, swim across wolf lake and live like a wolf for 8 years before he could return to the settlements of men. At the original Olympics the tripod kettle was important. At the Olympics sacrifices were made to Zeus and Pelops. Pelops had been slain boiled and broiled in a tripod kettle, and served to the Gods. He was restored to life, except his shoulder blade which Demeter had accidentally eaten. A rams shoulder blade was used to replace it. It is important to note Thyestes and Atreus were sons of Pelops. But we don’t need to stick with the Greeks, we can look to the Norse myths, where Volund Smith, who lived at the wolf dales, murders the sons of the king who holds him captive and makes drinking vessels of their skulls which are given to the kings as trophies. Or in the story of Sigurd the Volsung, where Atli dreams he has eaten his sons and they become dogs. Later “ Then the king asked where his sons were, and Gudrun answered, ‘I will tell thee, and gladden thine heart by the telling; lo now, thou didst make a great woe spring up for me in the slaying of my brethren; now hearken and hear my rede and my deed; thou hast lost thy sons, and their heads are become beakers on the board here, and thou thyself hast drunken the blood of them blended with wine; and their hearts I took and roasted them on a spit, and thou hast eaten thereof. ‘ King Atli answered, "Grim art thou in that thou hast murdered thy sons, and given me their flesh to eat, and little space passes betwixt ill deed of thine and ill deed.’ " The story occurred around Cyrus the Great. When Astyages orders Harpagos to kill Cyrus and Harpagos does not obey, Astyages has Harpagos son slaughtered, boiled and broiled and served to his father . Following the meal the boy’s head, hands and feet are given to his father in a basket. It is important to note that Cyrus was said to have been raised by a she wolf, or prostitute (note the name Caleb in Hebrew means dog or prostitute). The story of Jason and Medea is to be included in this group (his sons are slain at the alter), as is Achilles son Neoptolemus (later called wolfish, and connected with Delphic wolf cults) slaying Priam at the alter.

But let’s back track a moment and note, that most of the grisly accounts above mention the presence of a lamb, or a ram. Thyestes and Atrues were fighting over a golden ram fleece. Jason of course has the Golden fleece. Everyone else eating with Harpago is eating lamb. The sacrifice to Pelops, was a ram and his shoulder blade was in some instances ritually shown to be a ram’s shoulder blade. With this we can return to the Bible.

The use of a lamb to sacrifice in relation to a leper (a wolf) seems widely dispersed, but doesn’t indicate anything about obsession with werewolves in the Bible. I’d like to follow the idea a bit further along. On the island of Mykonos, a ritual was performed for Poseidon wherein a ram was sacrificed, and then it’s shoulder blade was sprinkled with wine. This ritual was very much like the ritual for Pelops. But this ritual of a shoulder blade and wine are not confine to the Greek sphere. This will point us back in the direction of Biblical reference.

“And the priest shall take the boiled shoulder of the ram, and one unleavened cake out of the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and shall put them upon the hands of the Nazarite, after the hair of his separation is shaven: / And the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD: this is holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine.”

The relationship to a rams shoulder blade and wine are important here. There is a bit of a reversal as wine is sprinkled on the shoulder in one instance and the shoulder is waved about in the other. But the elements are in place. Even the whiteness from Lamnetations: “Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk.” What is more is like the Leper, the Nazarite (separated or held aside) has his head shaved on the threshold of the sanctuary. This is because the Nazarites vow not to shave their heads or eat grapes or drink wine. It is noted however they can eat honey and have honey mead. This is very important. Wine was the “blood of the grape”. Grapes had to be “killed” and bleed to cause fermentation. Recall it is forbidden for Jews to eat something that has died naturally. things must be prematurely killed for magic to occur. Or better put, you can't make wine from raisins.

The “death” of the grape or vine is often blamed on a goat, or ram, or shepherd. And it is sometimes asserted that the rams blood colors the wine. A Nazarite in his vow, cannot, like the Arcadian wolf men, partake of cannibalism during their werewolfism. In other words, the wine was held to be the blood of the sacrificed ram, which in turn stood for a man (or god). A Nazarite under his vow could not partake of the flesh or blood of a person and hope to return to the status of a man. This should also be mentioned, it was not only the grape but the vine itself that was connected to the ram.

The Nazarite grew his hair to be an animal, a wolf, and his hair is where his power resided. The story of Jacob and Esau ( Esau is also called Edom-red, and Seir- hairy) has still another account (closely related to Odysseus and Polyphemus and the story of Humbaba in Gilgamesh) of wild men, and sacrifice regarding the stolen blessing. But these examples can go on and on. Other that could be brought in are Samson, Caleb, the 300 dog soldiers of Caleb, the treatment of strangers, the title “stranger” taken by several of the Patriarchs, Naboth slain for his vineyard through the devices of Ahab and Jezebel- stoned outside the city "In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth, dogs shall lick your blood, even yours," also dogs and prostitutes (Caleb) bathe in the blood of Jezebel. The Old Testament examples are daunting to list because there are so many of them. The word “Hebrew’’ has the sense of “stranger” or “one from the other side (of a boundary)”. And Jew or YD and it’s Minoan derived relative “Id” as in the Idean cave, mean  “wild or desolate”. Were wolves were also termed wild men, and Plutarch notes the Jews made a distinction between drinking wine and drinking beer or mead which the Greeks shared. Men drink wine, bearded animal men drink mead or beer (barbarians- “bar bar”- bearded, or a jibberish noise). Mount Sinai, also known as Mount Horeb, the mountain sacred to god, is Horeb) “desolate place”- the mountain of the wilderness. The position of wild man/ werewolf to a “civilized man” is noted everywhere. The homeless, wandering Wildman, was not just understood it is mandated. The Jews may not own a land. All land is turned over to God, the Jews are perpetual, “unclean” and holy, wild men. Nazarites, in a sense, that is separated, as a whole people. I would like to mention this position was the origin of “chosen” people. Chosen by God in the sense they were chosen by lot to perform the hard task. The idea of chosen as in “Elect” was a later development and groups such as the Essenes reacted against the idea. Modern versions of these “chosen” people, or those elected the hard task still exist.  To be chosen wasn’t the position of advantage.  It was, however, deemed holy or sacred.

In Gilgamesh the example of Enkidu and his transition from animal man to human is explicit. It is not accident that Jesus is connected with Bethlehem or Bet Lahmu, though very old by the 1st century C.E. Though transformed through time, traditions still surrounded the “house of lahmu”. Lahmu were heroes known for their redness (termed muddy) and hairness. Enkidu was a Lahmu hero.

When we come to the New Testament era, we run into the Dead Sea Community, who again, outcast themselves to return to proper holiness. That is they assumed the former ritual werewolfism, and were careful about accepting the goods from gentiles relating to “threshing floors” (meaning the area in front of the threshold where grain was threshed- like where Dagon was fallen and Nazarites cut their hair). This indicates they were aware of some memory of the werewolf tradition, if greatly changed after Babylonian, Greek and Roman influence. What is most telling and most complete, is the account of the Last Supper where nearly all elements are met. The sacrificial paschal lamb is connected to the victim, who is eaten (“This is my body, this is my blood” in reference to lamb and wine). Likewise Jesus declares  that wherever he hands the sop, or who eats the portion given him will betray him. This is the same event that took place among the Arcadian Shepherds. They were given a vegetable dish and whoever ate the lamb was outcast and a werewolf. It must be recalled that “Judas” that is “Judah” or Yd- means wild, or Wildman (man of the Jews or strangers), and is not an accidental designation. This isn’t anti-Semitism at the table of Jesus. The tensions in the definitions of righteous Jews was often violent and with several diverse interpretations.  These were both religious and political issues.  Among some groups righteous separation was still a very strong impulse.  Chosen and righteous still had a strong dose of the magical outcast.
The tradition of the werewolf carried through with surprising consistency well into the 17th century A.D. In the 12th century A.D. the Grail Romance the Perlsevaux mentions a character “Gargaran the Albanian” who cannibalizes children. Albanian of course from the root alb meaning both white and wolf, but also “gar” which means stranger, and is the old Testament term for “stranger”. It carried still further forward in time. The Brothers Grimm recount a story called the “Juniper Tree” which still carried vestiges of  the werewolf lore from the same traditional sources as the Bible. As did little Red Riding Hood. In the original story Grandma is turned into bread and wine that Red Riding Hood is made to consume. Then Red Riding Hood is bound with, strangely, woolen rope, that is, with rams fleece.

Seen through the lens of lycanthropy, the Bible may need some review.
So we have considered the idea that werewolves are in the Bible, and maybe at this point it doesn’t seem so strange.  It isn’t exactly the werewolves that are handed to us from somewhat modern European stories but it isn’t a comfortable distance either.  Removed from horror movies, and scary stories the idea of werewolves takes on a somewhat different sentiment.  And it is sentimental, not a reasoned difference.  When the Eucharist is performed it is not thought of as a horrific monster movie act, though it is eating the body and drinking the blood of a man.  The transubstantiation is deemed a miracle of actually turning a wafer of bread and sip of wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus.  A great deal of medieval ink was expended describing just how it was a miracle that bread and water should magically change.  It was never discussed as cannibalism, or lycanthropic, at least in orthodox circles.  In the Grail Romances it was explicitly mentioned.  The Great mystery of the Grail, the question that is supposed to be asked by Percival when seeing the Grail “who is served with it” is never answered, but the answer is “the werewolf or the cannibal man”:  Who is served with a cup of blood and the flesh of a man?  (This is because the grail is variously described as many things but sometimes a platter that held human flesh, or a cup of human blood.)  Likewise in the Grail myths the hero Percival (or a similar name) is described as a “welsc” which is sometimes taken to mean Welshman, but simply means “stranger” or “foreigner” or “alien” (as was mentioned in the previous werewolf post, another term for werewolf is stranger).  Welsc, is an Anglo–Saxon word meaning “strangers”, and was the term used to described the Brythonic Gaelic speakers already occupying southern England.    The invaders referred to the established occupants as strangers, or aliens.  Back to Percival, he wears animal skins (that is he is clothed like a wolf, or an animal), and he meets cannibals, such as King Gargaran of the Albanians.
The tradition and history of this werewolf lore is very old and exists today in Catholic ritual and beliefs, and in some derivative Judaic concepts, though the older ideas have largely been retermed and offered as metaphor.  Some Wiccan and New Age ideas have taken up the idea, but they are not at all related and have much more to do with fictional ideas and accounts from novels in the late 20th century.
Presently, I would like to consider some ideas, and consider some questions, as well as point out some relationships and strange trajectories connected with the werewolves.  These may unveil some surprising ideas, I think especially around Jesus.
First, let’s consider some things.  If what I am saying is correct, then Judaism and Christianity have a central set of ideas regarding the laws, stories, and lineage of werewolves.   That mentioned, the Greeks, Romans, Scandinavians, Egyptians, Celts, and many other peoples did have werewolf/stranger, as a central premise.   Though sometimes wolves, or dogs were replaced by other animals, but this will be explained shortly.
I would like to consider Judaism and Christianity here, and the common points of importance between them.  I have mentioned previously that Hebrew, or “Abiru” or “Apiru” means “strangers” or people from the other side- that is the foreigners.  In Egypt they seem to have been assimilated to some extent and considered the lowest class.  The term “apiru” had the meaning of “low class” or a low caste.  The idea of the strangers and outcasts was connected to these tribes from a very earlier period.   They are first described as invaders arriving with the Hurrians (Indo-European invaders), and causing the usual havoc and disorder of invaders arriving from the Caucasus.  This history has little to do with Bible accounts, but I note it to point out in some sense of the idea of the Hebrews as foreigners, and strangers of a special sort is already in place.
The idea of the stranger was present, as was the idea of Wildman, in Sumer, and the idea of the Wild man as enemy was in place in Egypt when the Hebrews arrived.  His position and importance changes and varies, but he is easily recognizable.  As Set in Egypt he is known as hairy, and the foe of Osiris or Horus and identified with the constellation Hyades which are the horns of Taurus.  As Taurus he perennially fights Osiris, or Horus as the constellation Orion.  In Sumero-Babylonian stories and throughout the ancient near east he was a hairy hero, sometimes called “Lahmu heroes” which means both muddy and hairy, or red and hairy.  The name Bethlehem- House of Lahem- is derived from this word.  Likewise the story of David and Goliath contains this “lahm” character.  In II Samuel and First Chronicles David (also called Elhannon), notably from Bethlehem, kills Goliath, or Goliath by another name, Lahmi.  (The name Goliath is interesting but maybe for another discussion.) The figure appears in earlier stories like Jacob and Esau, where Esau called “Seir” hairy, and “edom” red, is easily discernable as a lahmu hero.  The most famous Lahmu hero is probably connected with the story of Gilgamesh, the Hero, Enkidu.  In this story it is important to consider that Enkidu is enemy of the Bull of Heaven (The constellation Taurus, therefore he is Orion).
Enkidu is interesting for other reasons.  He is made of clay, he is a hairy animal man, and he seems to be intimately connected with the heavens.  He is referred to as an axe and a meteor from heaven.  In Egypt stones from heaven made of meteorite iron were thought to be the bones or semen of the gods or sometimes called “benben” and were thought to be the eggs or bodies of the Pheonix.   This will be important in a moment.
To consider the origins of man according to Judaism and Christianity, we have to consider Adam, who seems, at first glance, werewolf free.  There are some clues though that point to werewolves and murder.  We must first consider some things, and these things would be other Adams. In Egypt Adam was Atem, or Temu.  Tem comes from the same root as the word “adam” and both mean mankind (adam also has the sense of earth, as does Latin homo and humo which may show the idea of man and earth are closely linked in several places- the English word man also a god, Mannus, who emerged from the earth).  Atemu is a god created from clay on a potter’s wheel, in some accounts, and is often associated with a serpent.  Atem is said to reside atop the Benben stone, and rises to heaven on the Benben stone.  As may be imagined Atem is connected with the creation of mankind, but he does so in the capacity of a god, as well as engendering men, he also creates the other gods.
In the Sumero-Babylonian accounts the term “tem” appears as Temu and Etemmu.  It is much closer to our subject of werewolves, so may be more familiar in form.  It is decided that man must be created to ease the burdens of the Gods.  So the Gods set about a magic charm to create the first men.  To do this they must kill.  They decide to kill a god named “Geshtu-E”.  The assembly of Gods kill Geshtu-E and his blood is mixed with clay, from which man is them made.  The redness of the clay is often mentioned in connection with Adam.  In Islam, Adam is not made of clay but a clot of blood.  The connection between blood and the redness of the clay was also mentioned as a pun with Adam’s name and the word “edom”-red. This is not a very strong connection, but it gets a little help when it is considered Geshtu-E was also called Etemmu, or even more close, it is said “an etemmu came into existence from the God’s flesh.”  Etemmu is a variant of the words Atem and Adam. Along with the Etemmu, or ghost, a drum beat is mentioned which, though extremely important, can’t be covered here.  Along with Etemmu, to emphasize the word, a pun is used referring to Geshtu- E as Temu.  For those who read the post on “the muse” may recall mention of Moses and Meshkenti, as womb goddesses or Goddesses of birth, likewise the account of Geshtu-E also includes womb Goddesses and importantly a “room of fate”.  This room of fate, to make a long story short, is usually connected with Ursa Major, and is the place of origin for the “breath of life” from India to Egypt and among the Greeks, Romans, and Scandinavians as well as the Hebrews (the idea of the northern stars or Ursa Major as the origin of the “breath of life” and a thunderous drumming have been traced around the world.) *Note: Geshtu-E is also read Ilawela.
So with these accounts we can consider Adam, and consider whether he is connected to werewolves and if he is, how so.  The commonality of the names Adam, Atem, Tem, Temu, Etemmu, should be held a side for just a moment.  They are interesting and suggestive, but direct connections seem a bit tough to make even with the elements I mention above with Lahmu heroes, and the various “tems” relationship with creation. The Biblical Adam, at first glance, seems a different matter.  For our werewolves we have had some specific needs, like werewolves, cannibals, and estrangement-not to mention animal qualities, hairiness or the like.    The Biblical Adam seems to be alone, so unable to murder, and when he does have company, he doesn’t kill her.  Likewise Eve is not described as bestial, and she performs no killings, as there is only Adam, and one other character of note: the serpent.
As I mentioned above Atem was connected with a serpent, his temple was called the “serpent house”.  If we accept Atem and Adam, as even distantly, related stories how did it come to pass that in the Egyptian Adam is the serpent and in Hebrew he is the enemy of the serpent.  The serpent is a tricky problem.  Where does it come from?  Why is it there? Then by extension we have to ask-what is the original sin?
Where does it come from is actually fairly easy to answer.  As I mentioned above our werewolves are connected with stars.  Certain constellations were known as the werewolf, and identified in the stories as the earthly werewolves.  Often the werewolf was assigned the role of enemy of the Gods, as he was in Egypt as Set, in the constellation Hyades (Taurus), or with Apep -again the Hyades.  As Apep the constellation Hyades was a serpent or dragon of sorts.  This isn’t unusual.  Among the Norse the constellation Hyades was “Hati’ the wolf, or Fenris the wolf.  It was also the midgard serpent, Jordmungund.    Still further it was a bull, or a bullshead.  Several Norse myths are devoted to describing the scene the constellation represents.  This may seem a bit far removed from Egypt and Biblical stories.  It isn’t.  Though following by a few thousand years the Norse maintained icons and images  with direct relationships to the icons and images of the Egyptians and Mesopotamians.  In one example, a recurring theme (also found among the Greeks) is a nude, but belted, figure fighting a monster.  This image is always Orion.  In the rune poems the Rune “Tyr” is known as a constellation shaped as an arrow, which is Orion’s belt.  In the stories Tyr, or Orion, loses his hand to Fenris wolf.   There are pictures of the nude belted Orion fighting a werewolf, who conspicuously holds a spear descending from his wolf’s head into the foot of Orion.  In Egypt, on one of the versions of the Benben stone was carved a depiction of Orion, nude but belted, offering up his hand to the Hyades (that is to Fenris).  These depictions of Orion of are fairly consistent, and were the basis of the formulaic pose depicting Gods or the Pharaoh known as “Osiris smiting his enemies”.  It may be interesting to note that our sense of composition is the heir, in large part, to constellational composition.  That noted the enemy of Orion, isn’t quite so stable.   He appears in seals, wall paintings, amulets, and other designs as a serpent with several heads, a dragon, a boat with a dragon head that attacks Orion, a serpent shaped boat, a serpent shaped as a staff, an ass, a minotaur, a wolf, a man, a hairy man, , etc.  the only sure and consistent thing to identify the image as the enemy of Orion, that is the Hyades, is Orion itself, and the direction of the enemy- always facing left to fight Orion.  A few general traits are such things as heads at weird angles, or awkward poses.  This is to maintain likeness to the constellation which isn’t precisely placed with Orion to make a perfect scene.   The Norse shield dye from Ollund made in the 6th century a.d which depict the two constellation are based closely on the angles of the constellation,  as are some seals from Neo-Assyrian sites dating to the 8th century bc., but the Greeks were known to take some liberties with the compositions.  They did not completely disregard the stellar compositions but did create more “naturalistic” poses.  Still within these poses, sometimes intentionally made with dark stone or wood, they would place white stones at the appropriate points in the composition to match the stars upon with the constellation was based. (One such mentioned by Pausanius is Athene of the Bridle.)
So we might consider that perhaps the serpent appears as the role of the enemy in a stellar play that was well known and very wide spread.  And this serpent was sometimes not a serpent but instead a wolf, or werewolf, and was ritually portrayed by a person or persons.  In this scenario, we might assume the werewolf is ritually given the history and traits of the enemy as seen in the narrative of the stars.  But again we would be guessing at a thing.  It doesn’t say anywhere that Adam is a constellation or represented by a constellation,  and it doesn’t suggest that the serpent is either.  It is true the god Atem, and Geshtu_E can be connected to stars, and the connections are fairly clear.  Likewise it can be connected in several places that werewolves are related to constellations, and calendars with certain constellations as their emphasis.  But the story of Adam doesn’t seem to mention any such things.  Does it?  It does.
In Genesis 1:27 it says: “So God created Adam (or man) in his image (shelem), in the image of God he created them; male and female he created (shelem) them.”
This word “Shelem” is an interesting word.  In Hebrew it is usually translated as “likeness”, “carved image” or “image”.  But this isn’t exactly correct.  The name “Solomon” is also “shelem”.  The seal of Solomon, the five pointed star, is emblematic of Solomon because it refers to the morning star.  Before Solomon was a supposedly historical king he was a mythical divine figure with a brother named “Shakar”.  Shakar and Shalim (Solomon) were the morning and evening star- that is the five pointed star (Venus the morning and evening star, creates the form of the five pointed star every eight years.)  The word “shelem” or “shalim” are forms of the Akkadian word “shalmu”- meaning likeness, statue, constellation.  They did not mean these things apart.  A likeness was a constellation.  A Shelem was not a simple likeness but a specific type of likeness, like a statue made to look like a constellation.  The name Solomon, is not actually a name it is a title, and was attached to names, or positions.  Like a “regnal” title.  A name acquired at the ascension to kingship.  The Bible notes Solomon is given his name Jedidiah, by the prophet Nathan.
Solomon is surrounded by stars, his mother is BathSheba (daughter of the star), and he has an adventure with the Queen of Sheba (Sheba, shb, means star or constellation)  which was the subject of a many legends, not to mention the “shulemite woman” in the Song of Songs (Shulemite means “one of the people of the stars”) and his brother Absalom (likeness of the father, or in likeness of the constellation of the father).  The legends of Solomon are filled with astrological and stellar references.  Each demon who Solomon controls through the use of his seal gives descriptions of their constellations and powers.
I mention this to show that Adam is a sculpture created in the likeness of God’s constellation, not simply created in God’s likeness.  The understanding of “shelem” and its wide meaning were still in use when Kabalistic books such as the book Bahir (first published in the 12th century AD) which continues to juggle the word shelem and incorporate the popular meaning of “peaceful” with the wider definition.  When Adam’s creation is mentioned it refers to stars, to translate shelem as “image” or “likeness” is to distort the meaning to fit some traditional misconceptions.  The tradition goes beyond Adam. One tradition describes Cain as colored as the stars, another reports that when Adam’s son Cain was born, “Who shall tell my lord Adam? I implore you, ye luminaries of heaven, what time ye return to the east, bear a message to my lord Adam.’- that is the sign of Cain is a constellation.  Reading these ideas of the “likeness”, it also becomes clear “shelem” is not only how a thing appears.  It refers to behavior.  A Shelem must enact the thing it is like.  For example, one legend states Adam creates Seth in his image, unlike Cain, who behaved badly.  Seth behaves in accordance with the behavior of Adam.  A likeness also includes a sequence.  Meaning the shelem is based on a moving thing.  It is not static.  For Solomon to be like the morning star he has to enact certain things as the “star” is actually a calendar.
Armed with the information that Adam is a constellation (shelem in summary), we can now safely ask- which constellation is Adam?  The answer is given fairly clearly by the Bible.  Gen 3:15 “...he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.”  The constellational battle between Orion and the Hyades has one repeated event: a wounded heel and a struck head.  Robert Graves describes at length the various heel Gods in the ancient world in his book the White Goddess, but a couple of the important ones he missed would be Ra in a story regarding a betrayal by Isis, wherein Ra is bitten on the foot by a “serpent shaped as a dart”,  and again the Ollund shield dye with Orion wounded in the foot by a spear from a werewolf whose head is awkwardly tilted in the shape of the Hyades.  Mesopotamian versions have a many headed dragon (one head per star in Eridanus) whose lowest head attacks the foot of the Orion.  The heel wounding may seem odd, but it isn’t if you look at the stars.  A line of stars project from the “lower jaw” of the Hyades to the foot of Orion.   This line with open jaws atop is the origin of the “serpent staff” in its various guises-this includes Moses Serpent staff, as well as the Nehushtan.  The “staff” portion is known as the constellation “Eridanus”, the celestial river.  When the Bible reports that Moses cannot ever cross the Jordan, it is speaking very clearly, especially if it is understood Moses is Orion, which sits beside Eridanus (Jordan in Hebrew).  The Orion constellation will not cross the Jordan constellation.   The list and examples of the icons and stories regarding wounds to the head and heel involved with the constellations is very long and spans several thousand years, among very different cultures.  In the Bible there are several examples, the birth of Jacob and Esau, Jacob wrestling the angel (as well as the ladder-Eridanus was called the “ladder” in Egypt), Baalam and his ass, and this proceeds into the New Testament in ways that will be addressed shortly.
This is all interesting, but the werewolf connection is a bit unclear.  What I seem to have mentioned is a pictoral battle between constellations and the understanding of this battle by various peoples in the past.  Thus far I have noted some ideas present in early Judaic thought that give biblical characters some strange coloring, and imply some unusual beliefs.  But I haven’t clarified how Adam is related to werewolves.  I did mention, previously that werewolves were very prominent in the Bible, and to be  Jew, a Yd, was to a be a werewolf, likewise here I will put forward, to be a Christian, regardless of whatever rationale one follows, is also to be a werewolf (The Eucharist is one of several examples,, which I will bring up shortly).  But it would seem reasonable that  to assert this I must connect the first man with this tradition, if I am to make my case at all.  I say this because, Adam is the cause of both Judaism and Christianity.  In the first case because Adam sets the precedent and situation in which law can exist (Jewish law, or the laws that emerge out of werewolf ideas), and in the second case because Jesus was fully in line with werewolfism and deemed the second Adam.  There is much discussion about Seth, Adam’s son, as one of Jesus’ ancestors, and through Seth having Adam’s Likeness.  With Jesus, according to Christians, the werewolfism comes full circle (though I doubt this would be offered in these terms.)  Adam is said to be crucified at the place of Adam’s burial.  He refers to himself as the “Son of Man”, which in Hebrew would be rendered, the son of Adam (this connection was not lost on the Sethian Ophites, who venerated Seth as a precursor to Jesus and refer to Jesus as the Great Seth).
But we are left with a bit of a conundrum.  The werewolf has to do with sacrifice, ritual killing, scapegoats, and fairly dark happenings.  There seem to be some hints in stories like that of Geshtu-E that something was killed in order to create Adam, but the story of Egyptian Atem doesn’t seem to support this.  His creations involve masturbation and ideas of sex, not murder.  A read through Genesis doesn’t give over any descriptions of Adam killing anything to earn his rejection from paradise.  But here we seem to stumble upon a strange marker.  Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden.  One of the characteristics of the werewolf is to be an outcast, a stranger, and this situation is visited on Adam and Eve.  What is more is the werewolf becomes a werewolf through eating.  In Greece, and Rome, and many other places (as mentioned previously in the first werewolf post), what is eaten is a shepherd boy.  An act of murder and cannibalism takes place leaving the head hands and feet as evidence or left overs.  As I noted previously the heads, hands and feet are conspicuous elements, and recur not only in myth, but the bible mentions these “left overs” several times including the destruction of the statue of Dagon, and the death of Jezebel.  Likewise I previously mentioned the High Priest of the Jews had to ritually place a drop of blood from a sacrificial animal on his head (ear), hands (thumb) and feet (toe).  These left overs were not simply unedible parts, they are the points in a constellation- Orion. Owing to the description Adam and Eve are cast out for eating something forbidden it might be wise to look for a death- a murder, and the traces of that murder.  We have some reason to suspect that Adam is a werewolf.
We must first look at what is eaten.  One of the “mysteries of the Bible” regards the Tree of the Fruit of Knowledge.  Traditionally in Western Europe it is considered to be the apple.  This is an add on, mystical, application.  This fruit was chosen because when sliced in half the apple reveals a five pointed star which was mystically connected with Mary and the secret “rose of heaven”- the patterns of Venus.  Much of this is influenced from the Greeks, and the fruit is not mentioned in early legend.  It may have some relationship to some Latin word games (Latin apple- malum, and evil-malus) or relationships to Mary, derived from Venus.  Apple trees are almost never mentioned biblically, and they are not mentioned as the tree of Knowledge, nor do they seem to have any magical or ritual properties.  Other fruits appear more frequently in connection to the forbidden fruit, and can be supported by internal Biblical evidence.
Without hashing through the suspects, I will bring out the two important fruits: the grape, and the fig.  Both are given credit as the fruit of the forbidden tree, but only one holds up in relation to the situation in question, though the other plays a supporting role.  First we have to toy with a few ideas.  1. The “fruit of the tree” is not a fruit, as such 2. More went on in the story of the Fall of Man than is mentioned in the Bible 3. That there is a reason the Nazarites, deliberately werewolves, cannot touch grapes once their vow is undertaken.
We have to depart from the Bible, and cover some related mythic figures to flesh this out.  YHWH, is not an uncommon name for a God, though it is held to be the name of the True and Jealous God of the Hebrews.  Among the Canaanites the name was Yah, and this version was also used centuries later among some Gnostics. Yah was another name of the God Baal. In Rome the God Jupiter (Diu Pater- father God, or if you want to trace it further “resplendent”- the meaning of the word Deus, or theos or Deva) was also called Jove which is pronounced Yohweh in Latin.  It was also recognized that the vowels taken and placed together created variations of the word YHWH, iouea, Euoia, etc. In Egypt the Gods made prayers to the Gods by singing their names as seven vowels in succession (according to Demetrius of Alexandria.)  Some have suggested this is why Hebrew has no vowels, as using the vowels one may accidentally spell the holy unspeakable name of God.  I mention this because we are going to discuss another YHWH, Euoia- Dionysios.
Plutarch, in Questionnes Conviviales, discusses the many similarities between the rites of the Jews and the worship of Dionysos.  Some of these are misconceptions, others are fairly reasonable observations of similarity.  One of the points he mentions and is worth noting, is the Jews, like the Greeks had some ideas regarding an adversarial stance between wine and beer or mead.
Wine is an interesting subject because it is very closely tied to sacrifice, werewolves, magic and the defining characteristic of a God.  In regard to Dionysos some ideas have to be understood.  As maybe expected with the subject of werewolves, life death and murder play a part, as does cannibalism.  First let’s consider wine- the blood of the grape.  Definitions and categories as we think of them today were not quite so precise 2000 years ago, not to mention further back in time.  For example the word for “crow” in Greek could be applied to several types of black birds.   At a very early point in history it appears any and all animals with horns or tusks were simply called “horn” and lumped together (whether bulls, goats, boars or elephants) by the single term.  This didn’t mean they were considered to be one and the same, it meant they all shared a quality, and this is how things were placed into categories.  Grape juice, a reddish fluid that comes from the living grape as it is “killed” was considered to have a relationship to blood and the blood of animals.  This is clearly mentioned, and not a poetic metaphor.  Grape juice and wine are the “blood of the grape”, and this term was current among several ancient cultures.  In Greece the story was attached to the wine hero “Ikarios” who is invents wine, and is murdered by shepherds who, upon being drunk for the first time, assume they have been poisoned exact drunken revenge on Ikarios.  Ikarios blood is said to color the wine forever after.  It is important to mention, as I will show shortly, that Dionysos was called at times around the precincts of the Delphic oracle.
It must be remember that in the Bible there is an interdiction against eating blood because “the blood is the life”.  But blood was not the only thing that defined something as living.  Breath, or the “breath of life” was the other component.  The word spirit and animus (as in animate) both mean breath.  The reason alcoholic beverages are called “spirits” is a related to some Greek, and Judaic ideas regarding the magical process of making wine.  Grape juice was put in containers called “kerykos”.  These were sacks made from the skins of animals- bulls or rams.  When the dead skin was filled with the blood of the “murdered” grape, it was left out to stand under the rising summer stars “Sirius”- the Dog star and the constellation Orion (both Hesiod and Pliny mention this recipe).  During this time of year, when the heat is intense, the skins filled with air, they breathed.  The wine was transformed from juice into a drink that made you crazy.  We know this as fermentation, but the ideas was a bit more elaborately understood by our ancestors.  This “breath of life”, coming from the dead was very important.  In Mesopotamia the head God was Enlil, God of the Breath of Life and the “ether”.  It was thought (from India to Scandinavia and beyond) that the “breath of life” was a special type of wind that originated by a spinning motion around the pole star called “the mill” (Hamlet’s or Frodi’s mill in Scandinavia, the Shambha mill in India, and many mills or spinning posts in between).  This mill was also called the potter’s wheel.  In Sanskrit is is the source of “Khert” or “Kharma” to do or make in the sense of making pottery.  This is often misunderstood.  Kharma in its earliest form (among the Jains) is a type of colored dust or earth, it is not the “wheel of fortune” and the idea of Kharma coming back around is also the wheel of fortune or ideas of Justice.  The Wheel of Kharma refers to a specific area in the heavens “the wheel”,  “the mill”, “the mill wheel”, “The potter’s wheel”.  It was thought the act of creation was a result of the spinning of this wheel.  In Norse and English, a related word ‘Weird” or “Urd” (from a root krt) means to make or spin out.  Even in modern colloquialisms we stills say “it  turns out…” referring to the idea “it came to pass” or “It came to be”.  In the Bible the references to this turning or the mill go under such terms as ‘Golgotha”, “gilead”,  and “Goliath”, which refers to a mill stone or a circular ring of stone, or a round stone.
Among the Greeks the idea of Kharma and the potter’s wheel is fairly directly related to the word “keramos”, ceramic.  But it is also present with Dionysos and wine lore.  In Greece the Gods of the breath of life are the Kouretes (from the root krt or kur), but there is also a clearer connection to Dionysos and “the Kharma” spinning.  In Attica there was a place named “Kerameikos” named after the son of Dionysos and Ariadne- Keramos.  Dionysos and Ariadne derive their names from the old Minoan religion on Crete.  Inscriptions found in Crete describe offerings to “Du on wo so” (Dionysos) and “ar ah ad ne” (Ariadne) .   The Minoan civilizations were not Greeks but were related culturally and linguistically to the Western Semitic peoples like the Canaanite Phoenicians, and Hebrews.  They spoke a Semitic language.  In the Semitic languages the word “Keram” seems to have a relationship to both the Indo-European words “Kharma” and  “Keramos”.  Keram, or Kerem means vineyard in, for example, Hebrew.
This description of the word “keram” or kharma, or kerem, or Keramos, is mentioned here to point out several things. The idea of breath, and the magical recipe for making wine involve murder.  A biblical another interdiction tells the Jews they cannot eat anything that has died naturally.  They can’t eat things that are not killed prematurely.  This may seem fairly sensible as eating already dead things can be bad for your health, but as the Jews and everyone else was unaware of the germ theory of disease, and recipes for making honey involved using corpses as homes for bee hives, it doesn’t seem that the reason for avoiding dead food was a health issue as we would think of it.  It was instead because of the idea of wine.  If you kill something prematurely it can still be brought back to life.  They kill the grape, they kill a bull, put the two things together as a wineskin and it breathes again and creates a magical- living- thing.  It is in a body (the skin) it has blood, and it “possesses” whoever drinks it. This formula was believed to have some connection to anything the Jews ate.  The Jews were forbidden to eat the permanently dead.
Also Kharma (as colored dust), or ceramics bears an interesting treatment in creation myths, and the making of wine, also has an interesting connection the creation myths.  Stomping or treading on wine is not a good way to make wine.  It doesn’t seem the productive way either.  They had wine presses or sacks in which grapes were pressed and strained.  Trodding on grapes is a ritual act.  It has some extension.  In the Dionysion festival of Choes (wine pitchers) at one point in the event boys would try to jump on inflated goat skins. That is they would attempt to stomp, not on the grape, but the breathing skin that holds the grape juice.  The important part is trodding or stamping on something connected with the recipe of wine making.  In the Creation myths from Mesopotamia the God is murdered and his blood is mixed with clay (as with Ikarios who’s blood is mixed with grape juice).  Then the clay is trod upon (the explanation given here is often they were making man like making bricks).  But the Mesopotamians made bricks using a wooden frame from clay found along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.  Even when mixing the clay with straw this stomping wouldn’t apply.  The Mesopotamians didn’t make figures (as is described in the myth) using the method for making bricks.  They didn’t mix the clay with straw for terra cotta figures.  The process described has nothing to do with bricks anymore than it does with making wine.  These are descriptions of a ritual action- and this action is standing atop or treading on something.  It has to be understood rituals involved with religion are something like re-enactments. When the boys jump on wine skins, or grapes are trodden, or clay is trodden it refers to a previous story.  And as the story is told with Geshtu_E, or Ikarios, someone is murdered first.
More soon….maybe