July 4th – My challenge to Christian America

I just noticed that it is the night of the Fourth of July, so happy Independence Day to the US readers!

And for any fundamentalist Christians, I will hereby accept your surrender of the United States of America on behalf of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and the restoration of the colonies. After all, you would not want to go against the Holy Bible would you?

As we all know, “no taxation without representation” was a cry of the traitors like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin et al. They objected to what is today the USA being a colony of the noble British Empire, and as uppity colonials always do, thought they should run their own affairs. Jolly bad show all round.

Rather than managing to lose the war against us Brits, and getting hanged as they so richly deserved, this disreputable mob of traitors won. OK, 1812 and the White House open air bonfire and rockets party made up for it a little, but it still irritates.

However luckily these foul “Founding Fathers” were clearly a bunch of irreligious maniacs, or simply did not know their Scripture. For what system of Government does God endorse? Imperialism and colonies paying taxation without representation. For is it not written “Render unto Caesar what is Caesars, and God what is God’s?” This clearly indicates the economic system then prevalent in the Roman colony of Judea was acceptable.

So stop whinging, and give us our colonies back, and we can celebrate true patriots like Benedict Arnold and Cornwallis, rather than perpetuate this irreligious treason?

Now of course, you may object to being forced to submit to Great Britian, in which case I will cheerfully accept a surrender to me personally. I have never been a King before, but have no real objection to trying something new. I don’t think American Democracy is faring well, so why not give Enlightened Despotism and a totally nonhereditary “I-just-felt-like-giving-it-a-shot monarchy a go? King Christian I – has a nice ring to it?

I will of course give the Native Americans due credit – they were there first. Mind you, in the UK so were the Welsh…

Everyone else though, how can you go against the clear word of God and support this overthrow of a rightful government? Have you not read Paul’s Epistles, if my earlier theological justification does not convince?

I await your surrender with eager anticipation. Maybe afterwards we can have a nice cup of tea, and a plate of cucumber sandwiches?

Happy 4th July!!!
cj x

The Story of St. Edmund

Story time! As son of a pagan Dane, from Bury St Edmunds, you can see my interest!

I wrote this years ago – in places I use Suffolk dialect, and it’s written from the perspective of someone in 1220 Bury St Edmunds….

‘This is the tale of Saint Edmund, long regarded as the Patron Saint of England, though I understand some Crusaders pay reverence to St. George who slayed the dragon’ he announces… ‘though I have heard that owd George was foreigner!’

‘Some say four hundred years ago King Alcmund was King of Saxony, across the North Sea from here. He had no heir on account of the fact he kicked his missus when she was pregnant, and needing a son decided to go on pilgrimage to Rome and make amends. While there he was a staying in the house of a widow of noble estate, and she did see a brilliant burst of light like the sun burst from his chest and prophesied that he would give birth to a child whose fame should like the sun reach all four corners of the Earth. When he got back his missus Siawara got with sprog roight quick and gave birth to young Edmund.

Over ‘ere King Offa of East Anglia, for we was a nation in our own right then, had no son because his heir Fremund had got it into his head to become an hermit! Thus Offa had to go a looking for an heir, and went off on pilgrimage to the Holy Land. On the way he stopped at Alcmund’s, and thought Edmund a fine fellow, so when he died on his way back he left word and his ring that Edmund was to be the new King.

Young Edmund took leave of his father who was right sad to see the young bor go, and sailed to England landing at Hunstanton in Norfolk. Where he
landed he gave praise to God for his safe journey and twelve sweet crystal springs sprung up out of the ground; to this very day they cure the sick
and folks take the water away in skins for those who be a needing it.

He was a good and wise King – by the time he was thirteen he knew his Latin Psalter off by heart, and at fourteen he came to be crowned King of East Anglia. During the year he prepared for his crowning he lived at  Attleborough, and his crowning was carried out by Bishop Humbert who anointed him on Christmas Day with the Holy Oil, he having scarce a month turned fifteen.

The coronation was held at Bures near Sudbury, where a royal palace stood in those days… The site where he was crowned is now the Church of St.Stephen on the hill overlooking the River Stour.

For ten whole years he ruled justly and well, as it is said -

‘Against poor folk shut not was his gate,
His wardrobe open all needs to relieve,
Such royal mercy did his heart move
To clothe the naked and the hungry feed,
And sent he alms to folk that lay bed ridden.’

Then two Danish brothers, evildoers and Pagans, named Hubba and Inguar invaded and landed at King’s Lynn with a huge army. This is how that came to be -

Some years before King Lothparck., the father of the Danish brothers was  blown in a gale to the coast of East Anglia. He was received at Edmund’s
court and treated royally as his status deserved, and taken hunting by  Edmund and his huntsman Beorn. Lothparck was a brilliant huntsmen and
every one admired him; this fair put Edmund’s hunter Beorn’s nose out of joint! When Lothparck went off to take a ship home Beorn waylaid him in
the woods and murdered him.

Lothparck’s faithful greyhound uncovered his master’s body, and Edmund was furious. He sentenced Beorn to be set adrift in a boat, and this was done
.
Fate however blew the exiled Beorn straight across the North Sea to Denmark. There he laid the blame for Lothparck’s death not on himself but
on Good King Edmund! The Brothers swore to avenge their father and set off for England.

The Danes rampaged up to Scotland, burning York and sacking Ely. Then
they made their way down to Thetford, where they made a great camp, and prepared to finish the business that had brought them here in the first
place. The King’s army fought well, but they were few, and the Danish
army thousands strong. Finally there was a great battle and to avert
further killing Edmund was forced to flee. He hid under Hoxne bridge, but a bride and groom crossing to their wedding saw him and betrayed him to the Danes, and as a result the bridge is cursed so no newlyweds will cross it to this day. Edmund was surrounded and meekly surrendered himself to their mercy, but they had none.

They demanded he should surrender his treasure, and reign as a subordinate King. Bishop Humbert tried to persuade him to give up, but he refused, unless Inguar accepted Christ as his Saviour and became a Christian. Edmund was tied to a tree and shot full of arrows, and then “haggled all over by the sharp points of their darts, and scarce able to draw breath, he actually bristled with them like a hedgehog.” He continued to call upon Christ, so they struck off his head and carried it into Haeglisdun Wood where they threw it in a thicket.

The following Spring the Danes had left and the East Anglians went looking for the head. They found it miraculously preserved, with a wolf guarding it
who led them the head by it’s howls. The wolf gave up the head, and it was carried off to join the body – when the two were put together they
miraculously reunited with only a thin thread like red seam showing where he had been martyred. The saint’s body was brought to Bury, and the
pilgrims visit the Shrine to this day.

Many kings have paid tribute to Edmund – Edward the Confessor took him as his personal saint, and too many miracles have happened to tell ye all now. Canute was a great follower of the Saint; his own father was struck dead by the wrath of the Saint when he threatened to lay hands on the shrine, and that is how it came to be that Canute gave the Liberty of Saint Edmund to the Abbey at Bury and that the Abbot rules us as the rest of the land is ruled by the King, on behalf of the King.

I think I have shown that Saint Edmund was a Glorious Saint and Martyr andmuch better than anything London town can provide talk of!’

Why do I think the New Testament narratives contain historical truth?

One of my friends over on my ghost forum wrote:

Much of the discussion I have had…  is regarding the bible. I asked the question – “How do you know the bible is a true record of what happened in Jesus’ life? That the disciples (or whoever else wrote it) didn’t elaborate on the stories in order to promote the religion that would have been seen as a ‘breath of fresh air’ at the time of Christ – hope when all else was gone.”

I thought this was interesting, so I hammered out a very quick reply, which I thought I would share…

To answer this properly would require a huge amount of time, so briefly – we don’t know the authors of most of the New Testament (henceforth NT) books. If Jesus dies in 1933, the Gospel accounts we have today were written between 1965 and about now – 2009 (just subtract 1900 to get the real dates). So the question is can we be certain about accounts written a long while after the events?

Well the first thing many people do not realize is that in the NT as well as the four gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John we have the Epistles, which are divided in to two groups – the Pauline Epistles, and the Pastorals. The Pauline Epistles are all accredited to Paul of Tarsus, a persecutor of the early Church who converted – a bit like if James Randi became a medium and a major figure in Spiritualism over night. Paul also crops up a lot in one other books, Acts of the Apostles (also in the NT) which tells the story of the early Church after Jesus died. It’s a really fun story – you can find it here -http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts;&version=31;9; It was probably written by the same person who wrote Luke, so we call the author Luke.

Now of the Pauline Epistles Biblical Scholars (who are called Biblical Critics) believe seven were actually written by Paul. He was writing using my timeline example in the 1950’s, and died about (19)64 or (19)65, probably killed in Rome by the Romans. So his works date back to within 20 years of the crucifixion – more importantly if Jesus was crucified in (19)33, then he converted and began his ministry in (19)35 or 19(36), and knew a lot of people who were eyewitnesses, including Jesus’ brother James. So we have pretty direct testimony. (The other epistles were mainly probably written circa 1980 to 2010). All these dates are subject to debate, but these are mainstream scholarly figures.

So why believe the gospels contain truth about Jesus? Would we believe a ghost testimony from 1933? Was Borley Rectory really haunted? IT depends on the quality of the evidence. We all know stories can grow in the telling (though evidence suggests much in the paranormal/miraculous may be rationalized and forgotten) but one thing is pretty certain – there was a historical teacher called Jesus, who lived, died on a cross executed by the romans and inspired the movement today known as Christianity. Various kooks have tried to argue that he never existed, or that he was a version of a pagan deity, and older story given new life – but these claims are while popular (and they even got repeated by Stephen Fry on QI, who gave the Mithras December 25th rubbish) absolute nonsense. I have as it happens written a chapter of a book recently on them, and i can promise you it’s bilge. I might well post some extracts later. All mainstream historians agree there was a historical Jesus who was crucified. (A good mainstream study of what is called “the historical Jesus” is EP Sanders book, but the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes has written some excellent stuff too from an explicitly non-Christian perspective. There are also some good atheist  books on the historical Jesus as well.)

Anyway, what we now have to establish is the order the books were written. With the Epistles, I have already mentioned the most likely dates. The Gospels are more complicated – almost all scholars agree Mark cam first, and was available to and used by Matthew and Luke (traditional names for the authors) when they wrote their books. However Matthew and Luke also seem to be aware of each other – but who wrote first? This question of which order these thee gospels were compiled is called the Synoptic Question, from the Greek term for similar or same – because they all tell much the same story. (the end of Mark is missing, and a bit tacked on to complete it – more on that another time.)

The remaining gospel, John is totally different – Jesus in it goes off on long speeches which are not like the ones in the other gospels, and it is more “theological” – less of a history, more of what Jesus meant. Most scholars date John last, but it may well contain elements, particular the Passion narrative – the bit about the crucifixion – which are older than the rest, indeed possibly the oldest of all our sources!

It is interesting that they disagree on which day Jesus was crucified – the Synoptics say the Passover, John the Eve of the Passover. Nonetheless, despite details varying in all the gospels, the general story is the same. We find the same traditions, littles stories called pericope, from the Greek word for beads, which were preserved and handed down by the earliest Christians, and the authors each told the story according to how they saw it , arranging the pericope in a string to make the story as they told it. You see how that works? Now if the Church had actually invented the whole thing, then we would actually expect the stories to agree far more. But they don’t. Look at the Resurrection accounts. Original Mark if it ever had one is missing – Paul certainly knew about it, and yet the other Gospels all tell different accounts of who went to the tomb first, and exactly what happened that day. This is what one would expect of a real event, muddled by years and retelling. If they invented the story, well they’d have got the story straight.

Secondly there is a key thing called the criterion of embarrassment. The heroes of the story, the Apostles, often look like real dumb asses. Peter, arguably the most important disciple, denies even knowing Jesus three times. They squabble over who gets to be head honcho in heaven., They repeatedly fail to understand him. And even Jesus says things that were awkward for the early Church – it strongly seems that he expected the world to end at any time, and God to end history before the disciples were all dead. Yet they died, and the world goies on. (this is actually not as fatal as it sounds, but it is a very important issue – the end of the world is something we call the Eschaton, the study of it Eschatology.) Then Jesus says his mission is to the Jews, not the Gentiles who he likens to dogs. This was really quite a problem for the church which was rejected largely by the Jews but flourished among Gentiles. I could go on, but you get the idea. So yes, the accounts are real enough – otherwise none of this “embarrassing” stuff would be in there! OK, so why trust them? Very early on people start making up all kinds of claims about Jesus, so there has to be some measure of what is a real account, and what is rubbish. Generally the books believed to be real became part of the Bible – this is called the canon, the development of which books constitute our modern New Testament. For a book to be in the canon, it had ot be credited to an eyewitness, and apostle, pretty much. Because from the beginning that was how it worked – those who were with Jesus in his life, and saw what actually happened were given the leadership – they were the Apostles, and authority was investyed in them. When they died off the Gospels were posibly written to preserve their beliefs.

There were other books – mainly much later, but some early, which were rejected by the Church, as not fitting what the eyewitnesses taught. Many of these are known as gnostic gospels, and i’ll talk about them another time, but they won’t (with one possible exception) get you any closer to the historical Jesus. And now I really, really must go to bed.

Anyway hope of some interest to someone – it really is written for people with absolutely no idea about these things, and yes I know one could easily dispute bits.

cj x

The Futurist Movement; Italian Art & History – a very short introduction

I  wrote this many, many years ago, but thought it of some interest still!

Section One “Futurism; A Historical Perspective

The Futurist movement was born in the first decade of the twentieth century, a time when change brought about by the telephone, telegraph, aeroplane and automobile was revolutionizing the nature of Western European society. The fin de siecle world of the Decadents was dying, and the Age of Imperialism was about to destroy itself in the bloodbath of the Great War when technology finally destroyed the old European order. Elitist notions of Culture were challenged, first by Marx and then by a wave of agitation for worker-control. In Italy the anarchists brought terror and riots to the streets, and with them posters and leaflets. The bomb and the pamphlet were the weapons with which anarchist, syndicalist and communist sought to hasten the overthrow of the old order.

Intellectual radicals discussed the problem of popular culture, of the bringing together of the people and the world of Art. In Ireland, W.B.Yeats, the mystical poet, dreamed of a fusion of peasant mythology and idealism with the high cultural forms of poetry and mysticism, to create a Nationalist movement of the soul. In Germany Wagner composed operas which forged the idea of a German Spirit by adopting the mythologies of the teutonic warrior and farmer, and so inspired the beginnings of Nazi ideology, which culminated in Hitler’s battlecry, “Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer.” (“One People, One Nation, One Leader!”). These movements saw the value of a populist appeal to the masses, and both, one in Literature and one in Music, attempted to create an art for the people. Wagner succeeded, and Yeats failed, but neither ever really reached wide audiences. They were for the elite, only the mythologies (used here in the sense of Roland Barthes cultural theory) being drawn from the masses. The first modern artistic movement to actually try to reach the masses, and to embrace the idea of popularism, was born in Italy in 1909. It’s founder was one Fillipo Marinetti, like Yeats a poet. In his manifesto “The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism” he was to write “We will sing of great crowds excited by work, by pleasure, and by riot…”

Futurism developed out of the contemporary and historical situation. At the turn of the century Italy was one of the weakest of the Great Powers. Italy had only been unified as modern nation-state by Garibaldi in 1863 and was under developed economically at this time in comparison with France, Germany and Great Britain. However rapid industrialization was occurring with consequent social unrest in the form of strikes and riots. This sudden impact of technology on the Italian mind set was the primary focus for futurist art. Futurism also derived ideas from anarcho-syndicalism particularly the activism and the vitalism of Henri Bergson, the French philosopher. They also drew many ideas from the violent anarchist theory of the “Propaganda of the Deed”.

Section Two “Art before Futurism”

Art in Italy, as in the rest of Europe, until the 1800’s was confined to the institution and the academy. However the first notable movement occurred in Italy between the 1840’s and the 1870’s, here artists and intellectuals came from around Italy to a base in Florence and thus the emergence of the Macchiailoi artistic movement. The group was made up of many who had been involved in Garibaldi’s campaign to unite Italy and to rid the country of invading Austrians. These radical spirits wished to create a new Italian art.

“Truth, Reality and Nature” was the motto used by the Macchiailoists. They wanted to liberate art in Italy via a complete break from the past and tradition. They took inspiration for their new work from their surroundings, which was modern life, including the urban environment of the new Italy, which was to be a central theme for the Futurists.

The past which the Macchiailoists rejected was exemplified by Neo-Classicism and the academic tradition, which they attacked in a series of polemical writings in exactly the same way the Futurists later did. They were the first really national rather than regional movement in modern Italian art although they tended to be most influential in Florence, even though born out of the Posillipo School which had developed near Naples. Best known from this movement which certainly embraced many of the ideals of Impressionism were the artists Telemaco Signorini (1835 – 1901) and Giovanni Fattori (1825-1908). The emphasis was on light and bold form expressed through “contrasted use of colours and chiaroscuro”

Another Italian movement which was to have a direct influence on the Futurists was that of Divisionism. The major Divisionists in Italy were Giovanni Segantini (1858-1899), Guiseppe Pellizza da Volpedo (1868-1907) and Gaetano Previati (1852-1920). Related obviously to Seurat’s Divisionism or Pointillism, the Italian Movement according to Tisdall (p.24-25) was heavily affected by Symbolism, and relied on the use of broken line and colour rather than Seurat’s paintings which allowed colours to mix on the retina not the canvas by utilizing tiny dots of pure colour.

Tisdall notes that the  Technical Manifesto of Futurist Painting ends with the words “We conclude that painting cannot exist today without Divisionism.” Futurism was to draw it’s inspiration from the attitudes rather than the technical artistic methodologies of these earlier movements. It is interesting to note that most of the books I have been able to consult on Futurism, with the exception of Tisdall (1977), make no mention of earlier movements, hence making the Futurists appear even more radical than they actually were.

Boccioni's The street invades the house

Section Three “The Birth of the Futurist Movement.”

In 1909 the most important newspaper in the world of the Arts was the Parisian journal Le Figaro . In the edition of the 20th February 1909 readers were shocked to read the The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism which vigorously denounced the Passeists (being all the artists and poets of the past) and announcing the creation of a new tradition, that of the Futurists. The tone was beautiful, poetic, intense and insane. Marinetti set forth an eleven point plan which called for aggression, conflict and struggle, the praise of youth, speed and technology. “we will glorify war – the world’s only hygiene – militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the freedom bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for women.”

In this, point nine of the Futurist Manifesto we can clearly see the political influence on the movement. Patriotism, war and militarism are taken from the creeds of the Nationalist movements from whom Mussolini’s Fascism was to develop, yet also pay homage to the ideologies of the opposite extreme of the political spectrum. The phrases about beautiful ideas worth dying for and destructive gestures of freedom bringers seems a direct reference to Laurent Tailhade’s famous quote on the French anarchist Ravachol’s nail bombing of a Cafe – “What do the victims matter if the gesture be beautiful?”

Violent, shocking and disturbing, this first manifesto appeared on the front page of  Le Figaro It was a bluff by Marinetti; at this time there was no Futurist movement only himself and his ideas. It set the tone for what was to come, however it succeeded in attracting several like-minded souls to the cause. Instead of quietly passing through a phase of germination and debate, Futurism was born out of the international newspapers in a brilliant media event alien to all that had come before. Those who were attracted by this brash statement swiftly joined forces with Marinetti Umberto Boccioni and Carlo Carra, Giacomo Balla and Gino Severini all responded to the bait and Futurism suddenly had adherents amonst the artistic community. Herein we see Fillipo Marinetti’s great genius, manipulation of the media being his greatest ability except perhaps for his skill as a self publicist. He intended to bring about the End of all Past Art, and the creation of a New Art in much the same way another media manipulator Malcolm Maclaren was to attempt to bring about the End of Pop Music by his creation of “Punk-rock” some seventy years later.

Futurist Painting: Carra

Section Four “The growth of Futurism 1909-1915″

Futurism was hence born in a wave of publicity and scandal, and Marinetti continued as he began. Polemics denounced the “Passeist’s”, and their tone can be gauged by a quotation from the Founding Manifesto:-

“..because we want to free this land from it’s smelly gangrene of professors, archeologists, ciceroni and antiquarians. For too long has Italy been a dealer in second hand clothes. We mean to free her from the numberless museums that cover her like so many graveyards.”

The newspapers were used to publish full page advertisements and Marinetti set up a private publishing house and began to run off large editions of futurist books which he largely gave away.

His novel Mafarka the Futurist (1910) featured a hero with a nine metre penis which he was forced to keep wrapped around his waist when it was not in use, which was fortunately rare. This adolescent voyage of sexual adventure did have one long lasting effect on Futurism. Marinetti was arrested charged and ultimately fined for obscenity amidst colossal publicity. A t once a new weapon was added to the Futurist’s arsenal and from then on being arrested was used whenever possible to promote the movement. It was a sign of triumph, a declaration that the “Passeists” were on the defensive.

Another media that was used to draw attention to the movement and it’s aims was “The Futurist Evening.” This took place in a large regional city amidst a fanfare of publicity, and involved Exhibition of painting and sculpture, poetry readings and above all else polemical insults designed to provoke a riot and arrests, in which the Futurists frequently succeeded. The anarchist idea of “Propaganda of the Deed” was translated from the realms of politics and bombings to the realms of artistic controversy and verbal violence. One such incident is reported by Tisdall.

Marinetti and colleagues climbed the roof of the San Marco basilica in Venice and met the pious leaving mass with a torrent of abuse for Venice and its piety, and an announcement of Futurism, heralded by three apocalyptic blasts on a trumpet!

Futurism went beyond all the accepted parameters of an artistic movement. Not content with his own publishing house Marinetti realized that the newspapers had been the great strength of his movement from it’s inception. Not content with appearing in them, Futurist’s bought out Lacerba, a cultural newspaper, and made it into the voice of Futurism. What was more surprising is that this newspaper continued to sell, and mainly to the industrial workers of Milan and Turin! The paper was produced from 1913-1915, initially bi-weekly, and later weekly, and emphasized Futurism as a political movement. It is hard to imagine an Impressionist party with a programme that appealed to the workers in the same way!

Futurism is probably best remembered today for its influence on the field of visual arts, and the developments in this field were reflected by a certain degree of critical regard. An Exhibition in Paris was later transferred to Berlin and London, and a distinctive style developed that took it’s ideas from the philosophical basis of Futurism. “Movement not Stasis” embodies the spirit of this painting, and in Part 2 I will attempt to define what Futurist Art actually was, and as importantly what Futurism is today. It is ironic that Futurism defined itself by a series of manifestos that cover everything from Poetry, Sculpture and Painting to Lust and Cookery, and hence became a tradition as entrenched and defined as the “Passeist’s”. The end of Futurism however was expected from Marinetti’s very first  Founding Manifesto.

Futurist Painting: Balla, after his Futurist phase

Section Five “The end of Futurism? The First World War”

From the beginning Futurism had expressed themes of War and Conflict  as social hygiene – chilling sentiments with hindsight…

“We will glorify war – the world’s only hygeine.”

Their creed of danger and love of conflict made it inevitable that as the First World War began they would immediately call for Italy’s entry into the conflict, on the side of what they saw as the French and British worker against Austrian and German imperial aggression. When Italy did enter the conflict in 1915 many Futurists immediately entered the conflict, and as a result the movement lost some of it’s greatest names. Marinetti was to say that thirteen leading Futurists died in the war, but the most tragic blow was the loss of Boccioni, always the driving force besides Marinetti himself. By the end of the war the tragic implications of modern technology and war were obvious to all, and much pre-war futurist rhetoric seemed empty and facile. Even Balla began to stray, and Carra who had survived the war largely owing to his institutionalization as a lunatic by an army doctor (who did not understand his painting or his enthusiasm and patriotism for the war) became increasingly disenchanted. During the war years Boccioni and Carra had become interested in Cubism and the movement began to drift apart. By the cessation of conflict in 1919 the first wave of Futurism was effectively over, exactly as Marinetti had predicted in The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism when he wrote

“The oldest of us is thirty: so we have at least a decade for finishing our work. When we are forty, other younger and stronger men will probably throw us in the wastepaper basket like useless manuscripts- we want it to happen!”

In the event Futurism refused to lay down gracefully and die, and as soon as the war was over Marinetti set about creating a new Futurism.

Pigs might fly: facing a flu pandemic

It all sounds really scary doesn’t it? A flu pandemic, spreading out from Mexico. Even The (Gloucester) Citizen ran a headline story yesterday – two people in quarantine at home. OK, I was surprised when it turned out to be Tony and Kandia of Inkubbus Sukkubus – I had no idea they were gigging in Mexico City, way to go guys! (they are a rather fun local pagan rock band and decent folks) — but I’m more interested than frightened at the moment. Yes that’s right, CJ, Captain Paranoid about Epidemics, is not remotely bothered. Why?

Well the 1968 and 1957 pandemics were before I was born – and hell, I’m pretty certain that to a global economy in trouble, yep, this is seriously bad news. I note the failure to close borders and ban international flights – I agree it would be too late now, shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, and in todays world such isolation would be difficult and I hate to imagine the economic consequences.   But while flu pandemic are outside of my life experience, my grandmother Alice lived through all three of the twentieth centuries great flu pandemics, and my parents two of them.

So how bad is it?  Well, lets start with worst case scenario.  Wiki reminds us of a very sobering fact

As many as 25 million may have been killed in the first 25 weeks; in contrast, HIV/AIDS has killed 25 million in its first 25 years.

Ouch! Yep, up to 5% of the global population may have died in the 1917-1920 pandemic (usually referred to as 1918 flu as I recall. )  A new book came out on it just a few weeks ago — I doubt the author is jubilant, but sales will be GREAT! – not read that one yet, but I have Barry’s The Great Influenza and my favourite book on the subject, Gina Kolata’s wonderful book Flu on my shelves.  Why my interest?

Remember I said my grandmother lived through all three pandemics? She was 18 when it struck Bury St Edmunds, in the final weeks of the Great War. Hardwick Heath had a German prisoner of war camp, and I get the impression Alice really liked the handsome young Germans there, and many of the girls were  “walking out” with these fine young men.  Not exactly patriotic, but I think they worked on local farms and businesses, and security seems to have been pretty lax, and hey romance can bloom in adversity. Then in October or November of 1918, the camp was struck by tragedy. The men, kept in close proximity, contracted the flu, and day after day she reports seeing the coffins of these young, virile men, certainly strong and fit, survivors of trench warfare, as they were taken off for burial. And I recall Alice, then in her late eighties, shedding a silent tear and her voice cracking with emotion as she told me about it.  It was the soldiers she said, German and British alike, who died. That and the kids, and the farm girls – the young and the fit…

Hang on? The young and the fit? WTF? Even as a teenager I knew better — infants, the elderly, the asthmatic and those ill, they should hav died. Why “the young and the fit?” What the hell? I assumed Alice was wrong, and then I thought of a solution. 1918 flu hit at a time when NAval Blockade, U boat warfare, and the terrible experience of trench warfare had rendered the population ill equipped. Millions of mern in close proximity on the Western Front, in appalling conditions.   Of coure now I know a little better. In fact in terms of public health rationing during the 1950’s actually saw Britian’s population at a fitness peak.  I have no idea about the Great War, but it may be similar. And trench warfare, well our understanding of it is deeply flawed, and permaeated with myths. (Mud, Blood & Poppycock is an excellent recent history examining this whole issue of the myths of the Great War. Recommended) So why the young and the fit?

Now of course I had already noted that very fit people can succumb to pneumonia very fast, and there are plenty of theories. Also, one thing that is absolutely clear to me is that depending upon genetic resistance various populations have varying degrees of susceptibility. It could be that outside of the Mexican population this will not prove too virulent – there may be a genetic factor. You can look up genetic variance and casualty rates for the earlier pandemics easily enough the wikipedia link above on Flu pandemics will get you started.  A disaese with a 4% fatality rate would be absolutely terrifying – but I think we may be looking at 0.0001% – but who knows, it’s not like we have any accurate figures yet. Any deaths is a tragedy – but huge casualty figures probably will require vast numbers of infections, and most people will get better. It’s nothing like the Ryanair’s CEO Michael O’Leary incredibly panglossian, tactless and blackly comic comment about “ a couple of strepsils” being all that is required to solve the problem – hell I do hope he has put his money where his mouth is and gone on holiday to Mexico City to test this first hand -  but he has a pretty good point. If the disease is effecting mainly malnourished people in the slums, and that is where the casualties are, well we might expect that. Unfortunately well nourished and rather well heeled western tourists are succumbing, and one wonders…

This looks a lot like 1918 flu to me. Sorry, it just does. I’m sure it’s not the same virus – we have live cultures I think in America at Fort Derrick, USAMRIID or the CDC have them, excavated from bodies buried in the Arctic permafrost from that outbreak. Pathogenic Archeology – I’m not sure if this is a triumph or just damned scary, but if it was 1918 back I’m thinking we might already have a vaccine – dunno.  If instead it’s actually a new mutation, from the incredibly mild in humans Swine Fever, well then six months to vaccine I expect ( I should probably have read the news reports before starting this piece, but what reporting I have seen does not actually fill me with confidence in the accuracy thereof. ) So am I an apostle of doom?

Nah, not a chance. Got tickets to see Girls Aloud at the O2 and want to avoid the risk of crowds? Give ‘em to me. I’m not a huge fan but free concert tickets are not to be sneezed at. To be honest if there was an Inkubus Sukkubus gig tonight I’d not be worried about attending, even knowing the risk. Of course I wouldn’t – no one wants to make their friends and families ill, and I stay away from Andy’s house if I have a cold, rather than infect Mel and Bel. However, I’m not afraid of swine flu. James Blunt – he scares me.

So why has “Captain Doom” got all cheerful about this threat? Because at the moment i don’t see much of one. Remember the Bird Flu threat? Yes, it was real, and yes, it was scary, and we got lucky – it never spread to this stage, human to human contact. We could be facing the End of the World as we know it, but I feel fine, and i don’t think we are. Why? Because the Bird Flu threat made us prepare, and prepare well. Millions of doses of anti-virals, and if pneumonia develops, millions of doses of antibiotics – things the world in 1918 just did not have.  I’ve had pneumonia, and I’ve had pleurisy, and I’m still here – whereas in the 1930’s my fthers beloved sister Dolly died of pleurisy, in an age before modern medicine cvould combat the infections.

We understand the importance of infection control, we have major medical advances, and there is no comparison. We are far better prepared than even forty years ago when the last pandemic struck. Don’t worry, be happy…

I’m about to walk down to TESCO, under the railway arch at the bottom of the High Street, and another sobering thought. Few people know that back in the early twentieth century one of Cheltenhams five railway stations was here, and you can still see the bricked up arches.  Anyone know it’s history? It closed in the Great War, and never reopened, but in 1918 its empty corridors, now demolished, and waiting rooms and platforms were a temporary morgue for the victims of the flu. There were too many bodies for the morgue, and this was where masked men and women laid out the dead. I think of that every night when I walk through, and mutter a prayer for the dead.  I never forget the spectre of the past, and I’m a lot more aware of the 1918 pandemic than most people i think – but with that knowledge comes confidence.  I think we be just fine…

If that is not gloomy enough, I’m going to end on a note of real caution, and perhaps strike one alarmist note. You know I said the epidemic of 1918 was really 1917-1920? It actually (off the top of my head) began in the summer of 1917, on the Western Front (exactly where it started, China or Kansas, and if a pig flu or avian flu is heavily disputed by historians and medical experts).  The epidemic becomes established in Spain, and in France, and in Germany. And to start with its just a mild flu – a first wave that kills very few, but may have actually inoculated those who had it against the horror to come. Because in October/November 1918 the flu came in a second wave, and it was the grim Reaper we all know of.  IF, and I have no understanding of the pathology, this was to happen again, we could be in serious trouble. There is no room for complacency – and stopping the flu now, and obeying any medical directives is vital -  but unless a second wave of deadly virulence does appear, for goodness sake don’t we all have enough to worry about without scaring ourselves with media panic about flu? This gloomy prediction of a second wave is CJ talking as a historian, not with any medical authority or knowledge.

My thoughts and prayers are with the people of Mexico City, and I hope an international effort helps them too. And I hope I’m right, and this is nothing to worry about because the second wave theory explains the thing that puzzled me – why the young and the fit? Because the elderly and infirm had already caught the milder sumer 1917 version before it mutated and gained resistance? No idea.

Hey, it’s Beltane today- let’s think of happier things — who can extend their life by a single hour by worrying as the Jewish carpenter said in Galilee on that hill all those years ago.

Have fun guys, and keep well!

cj x

The Science of Ghosts – how it went, Part 5

On the outskirts of nowhere
On the ring road to somewhere
On the verge of indecision
I’ll always take the roundabout way

Marillion – Blind Curve

There is something about that Marillion quote which captures the road outside  Dreghorn Travelodge quite well!

Just realised I never finished my review. Well I’ll quickly whiz through the remainder of the day.  Last talk before lunch was ‘No More Ghosts!’: The Regency Phantasmagoria by Dr Mervyn Heard. I used to DJ a goth night, my own goth night in fact which I named Phantasmagoria — I intended it as “a gathering of Ghosts”, (and it’s also the name of an album by The Damned as I recall?) but in the 18th century it meant something quite different – a sort of haunted house- meets- theatrical entertainment.   This was a fascinating, lavishly illustrated talk, and I really enjoyed it — I would have liked ot pick up Dr. Heard’s book, to learn more about this ancient precursor of our modern Horror movies. Here is his website – http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~s-herbert/phant-web.htm

We had lunch in a pub which certainly reflected the diverse character of Edinburgh (read “it was full of loonies”) and returned at 2.15 for the afternoon session, which kept up the day’s high standard. Actually one of my favourite talks of the day, and possibly the most entertaining to many of us in the audience was Imaging the impossible: The truth about spirit photography by Gordon Rutter of the Edinburgh Fortean Society.   It was a fun and funny romp through most of the classic ghost photos, with explanations as to their context and how or what they represented in many cases, and there were some which were new to me. I’d love to reproduce them but I can imagine (c) Mary Evans Picture library being attached to almost everyone and having no desire to take up piracy at this stage in my life (and the cats would eat my parrot) I’ll just link to Richard Wiseman’s Science of Ghosts blog where you can see many of them.  Can’t really do justice to this talk without the photos, but for once I don’t seem to have any quibbles!  However the main thrust of the talk, and it was incredibly entertaining as Spirit Photography always is was the fraudulent 19th century spirit photographers, especially William Mumler. Do have a look at this, it’s amusing!

Next up was “Dialogue with the Dead”: Creating ghosts for television” by Stephen Volk. I was really looking forward to this one – I recall Volk’s play about The Fox Sisters, and of course the infamous Ghostwatch Halloween drama that caused incredible outrage in the early 90’s, and more recently Afterlife, which I only really saw the end of.  Was interesting to hear that the US show Medium that was on air at the same time was just a completely coincidental thing – noone was doing “Psychic detective drama” then two come along at once. Well probably more now, its own little genre, reflecting the Zeitgeist. Once Derek Acorah took the psychic reading thing out of the studio and on ot “haunted locations” it was inevitable that someone would write it?

Anyway I took notes as Volk led us on a biographical journey, and then through various screen writing tricks for writing horror. I scribbled half a page in Becky’s notebook, hoping to use some of it while running horror roleplaying games, and it was a solid entertaining talk lavishly “illustrated” with video clips.  I wanted to talk to Stephen Volk afterwards but did not get the chance (we had to dash to make an appointment)  but it was great to hear him speak and a thoroughly enjoyable session. Volk revealed that he does not believe in ghosts, and rather gently stated his sceptical position — he seemed almost apologetic – but he did state that in Afterlife his sympathies were with (Robert?) the psychologist, but that ultimately the storyline had to end with Robert facing his own death and mortality issues, and so his death led to the medium “winning”. I only saw the last three episodes, but it struck me as a really gripping series, and let’s face it I have no life and don’t watch TV. (Well not quite true – I watch very little TV!)

I wanted to ask him about the cancellation of the series, and if they had to shorten the story arc, and a lot else besides but it’s a bit intimidating to ask questions of the chap who wrote Ken Russell’s Gothic so I left it.  Great fun though, and i felt sorry for him when he described the moral panic which gripped the nation after Ghostwatch. Who knows, we might have had Most Haunted ten years earlier if it had not been for that Halloween drama?  It looks like Ghostwatch might soon have a documentary of its own – see here for details on the official Ghostwatch homepage. OK just two more talks to go and my review finally ends!

cj x

Eostre never existed: why Easter is NOT a Pagan Holiday

It should be obvious really, that Easter is not a pagan holiday, but a Christian one. The events it describes are clearly the crucifixion and resurrection stories of the New Testament – and we know they happened, according to our sources, on the Passover (or the Eve of the Passover). Without the ancient Jewish Passover festival story, the crucifixion and resurrection narrative make less symbolic sense – but one thing is absolutely obvious – Easter’s date derives from a Jewish festival, not any Pagan one.  So why do so many of us think we know otherwise?

The origin of the word, not the festival

Well the first thing is very simple. No one has ever really seriously claimed to the best of my knowledge that Easter is a Christianized form of an ancient pagan rite — such a claim would be patently absurd. I think even the most misguided advocate of Frazer’s vegetation god’s nonsense from The Golden Bough would realize that simply won’t work.   What is actually claimed by people who know what they are talking about a bit, is that Easter derives its name and some of its symbolism in English speaking countries from a pagan source.  Etymologically pagan, that is the word was borrowed from a pagan source, not that the festival was – but bizarrely year after year I see people make exactly the “Easter is pagan” claim.

So this year -

Why Easter is not pagan!

I throw open the challenge to anyone to demonstrate from primary sources any of these things, or a pagan origin for Christmas.

Let’s dispose of a few dodgy claims first. We have all heard that Easter derives from an Anglo-Saxon festival dedicated to the Goddess Eostre – but no one has ever found any evidence for the existence of this Goddess, outside of the Christian monk Bede, who in De temporum ratione wrote

Bede, c.700

Eostur-monath has a name which is now translated Paschal month, and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance

This was his attempted etymology of Easter – which is  only called that in English of course. The problem is that as the Goddess in question, Eostre is completely unknown otherwise, and Bede was an enthusiast for adopting pagan customs in to Christianity or allowing them to persist where it did not impact on Christian doctrine where possible (out of kindness and a desire to allow people to keep their old ways), so  this proposed etymology is probably spurious. In the 19th century a German antiquarian invented Osatra, as the German form, using Bede as his source.

Bede admits this idea is his speculation – he is not actually aware of a goddess called Eostre, he just thinks there was one. There is not a single reference to her, from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, any of the other writings we have from the period, or from inscriptions. No depiction – no amulets – nothing. Her Germanic version was invented completely in the 19th century, and again has no evidence whatsoever from history or archeology to back it up. So Bede was, as he often was, wrong – but in line with his own slightly odd but very humane prejudices. Read the first couple of chapters of his Ecclesiastical History and you will get the picture

So why the woo?

I’m afraid we are back to the pernicious influence of Frazerian myths about myths. A good way to spot woo here is the suggestion that the solstices were considered major religious festivals in pagan antiquity. They weren’t. In fact the notion they were really only dates to the last decades of the 19th century, and has more to do with occultism than history. Frazer popularized a lot of this with his Vegetation Gods crap in the infamous The Golden Bough, and the ideas have become as ingrained in popular understanding as say Freudianism has, with even less supporting evidence.

Easter Eggs pagan?

I have it on one good source that eggs were featured in certain Persian rites, and i believe that. It’s nothing to do with our Easter Eggs though. I am aware of no pre-13th century account of painted eggs etc? Maybe you can surprise me with a primary source? The classic study is Newell’s 1971 book – http://www.amazon.co.uk/Egg-Easter-F…9384936&sr=8-1 Anyway I am pretty certain you will find no evidence of pre-Christian Goddesses, especially Celtic ones, getting folks to hunt painted eggs down rabbit holes. One often sees this claim about the Anglo Saxon Goddess Eostre, but her worshipers were hampered in this practice by not existing in the first place, outside of Bede’s imagination. It’s all woo.

So any chance it might be name after a pagan Goddess?

Well Ronald Hutton does not entirely dismiss it

The other is that the Anglo-Saxon eastre, signifying both the festival and the season of spring, is associated with a set of words in various Indo-European languages,signifying dawn and also goddesses who personified that event, such as the Greek Eos, the Roman Aurora, and the Indian Ushas. It is therefore quite possible to argue that Bede’s Eostre was a German dawn-deity who was venerated at this season of opening and new beginnings. It is equally valid, however, to suggest that the Anglo-Saxon “Estor-monath”simply meant “the month of opening”, or the “month of beginning”, and that Bede mistakenly connected it with a goddess who either never existed at all, or was never associated with a particular season, but merely, like Eos and Aurora, with the Dawn itself.” Stations of the Sun, p.180

So there you go — there remains a remote chance we took the word from a real Goddess – but as its called Paschen or similar in almost all European languages, well that means nothing anyway – the English & German terms are much later.   The one thing we can be absolutely certain of is regardles sof where the word Easter derives from, Easter was not an adapted pagan festival as often claimed.

Still if you must follow ancient customs at least this sounds fun!

cj x

The Science of Ghosts: how it went, part 3

OK, I may as well get on with the review I guess! Next up was The Haunted: A social history of ghosts by Professor Owen Davies. This moved form the science of ghosts to the history and cultural construction of ghosts, and was absolutely fascinating stuff – unfortunately I have read Professor Davies book of the same name as the talk which Becky gave me last year I think for my birthday, but I have not read it all yet. Then again, I also have spent many years of my life with the noted folklorist and historian of the supernatural David Sivier as a close friend, and working in a related field (the social construction of Earth Mysteries in the inter-war period was the subject of an MA dissertation I wrote.)

However, I still learned a great deal, and if I can try to briefly summarize – Davies concentrated on roughly Reformation to late 18th century spooks, and mentioned the tradition of the ghost in the white (winding sheet) as the standard depiction. This leads to an obvious question -did the percipients actually see ghosts in the burial garb, or is this simply an artistic convention used in illustrating them? I guess I shall have to look in his book! Davies mentioned the naturalistic looking spooks, which seem to be found in all ages – my mind was however working on how patches of ground mist can easily be interpreted as spooks in white clothes.  Some years ago now I was coming back from a meeting with Karl and Yvette having just stopped working for ANTIX as a researcher for Most Haunted, and having dropped Phil Whyman off on location we were driving back along a country road when Hugh slowed down and steered round “something”, as what looked disconcertingly like  a little old lady crossed the road in front of us, picked out in the car headlights. It was of course nothing more than ground mist! I also wonder how many “Black Monks” are down to shadows?

Owen Davies actually mentioned the prevalence of Roundhead and Cavalier ghosts – anachronistic but identifiable – but how reports of Roman ghosts were rare until the modern period, simply because kids in school were not taught how Romans dressed, so they have no concept of “Roman”.  This leads to two thoughts – a) we can not actually deduce from this Roman ghosts were not seen – they may have been, but were not describable as such, as they could not be identified as Roman  and b) it is curious that one of the best actual witness statements on Roman ghosts, that of Harry Martindale in his famous sighting under the Treasurer’s House, York, does NOT have classic Roman legionaires as the description, but auxilaaries with oval shields as I recall. Maybe thsi add credibility to that sighting? Dunno! Obviously by the 20th century Romans formed part of the taught history curriculum in most schools I guess – I’m surprised given the incredible importance of Classics that Romans were not discussed before. Generations of school children appear to have known The Aeneid of Virgil, Tacitus, Suetonius, Plutarch etc? Were Roman’s really obscure in the educational curricullum of the past? I’ll need to look this up too!

A couple more things stick in my mind. Davies stated that child ghosts are very uncommon – definitely odd, as he said, given the high level of infant mortality. Was there not one famous child ghpost associated with Laud or somesuch? Once again I shall have to look it up – Ed Woods is the best person for this kind of work by far. What I definitely do not think is the case was Davies speculation that psychologically people were less effected by the death of children : this was largely demonstrated as untrue by the nnales historians, and while admittedly I have not read much in Family & Children’s history since I finished my history undergrad in 1990, it was idea that had fallen significantly out of favour at that time, based on documentary evidence as I recall.   So why no kids ghosts? I certainly find, with my modern sensibilities, the idea of child ghosts creepy, and they crop up repeatedly in the cases I am called upon to investigate — but thinking about it, I can’t think of any children ghosts in MR James and early 20th century ghost fiction; I guess Henry James Turn of the Screw may be the moment that childhood and ghosts meet with eerie force.  Also, the Medieval sources, such as the Bylands Abbey chronicles are as far as I recall devoid of child ghosts, as are the classical sources I know of. Immediately though a cause springs ot mind, and this is based upon something that Owen Davies mentioned in his talk – modern ghosts seem curiously purposeless, whereas the ghosts who haunted (often literally) the dreams of the classical and Early Christian ear were motivated by unfinished business – indeed this last right through Davies period to the dawn of modern era, with even 19th century ghosts depicted “pointing” at some wrongdoer, where there bones are hidden, where the will is concealed, etc, etc. And of course we have this in the annals of Psychical Research – 19th century cases like the Chaffin Will Case.  Are modern ghosts really purposeless? I guess one might argue that we are simply less interested in the teleology of the ghost – it is not the goal of the ghost that makes a modern mind wonder, but the fact that we are witnessing a ghost at all! If they exist that is…

So why no child ghosts? I suspect the answer is simple – because children do not have “unfinished business” to the minds of this era, but are seen as innocents. Without getting in to a lengthy discussion of pre-Reformation notions of Purgatory (roughly 1200 and onwards at a popular level in this country I think)  think a lot of ghosts are denizens of Purgatory, seeking redress for wrongs, or prayer for salvation and entry to Heaven.  I’m trying to recall how Thomas argues in Religion and the Decline of Magic how ghost beliefs are effected by the Reformation, but certainly the notion is not immediately dismissed by the triumph of Protestantism, for sixty years later William Shakespeare uses exactly this motif, albeit perhaps with tongue in cheek, in Hamlet. The ghost of hamlet’s Father is back seeking justice – a pointing ghost!

I’d best wrap this up or it will get very long, but the other thing Owen Davies mentioned that sticks in my mind is there are no or very few disabled ghosts. I think this has changed by the 19th century, with the madwoman in the attic, who is often a physical invalid in some sense, and grotesque hunchbacked villains – physical deformity as a way of expressing supposed inner vices or sin I guess — terribly unpleasant and harmful, but seemingly unknown in earlier ages. This is according to Davies because of the theological belief the dead take on board perfected bodies – based on the Pauline Epistles, in particular Corinthians I think -  but I’m not entirely convinced there were not some disabled ghosts in British folklore. In fact I seem to recall a few stories, though most are actually perhaps witch or devil stories – I’ll look in to it!

A fascinating talk, well illustrated, I think Professor Owen’s book will prove a very entertaining read and look forward to getting back in to it.

more follows

The Science of Ghosts: how it went! Part 2 (Ghost Photos)

This is the second part of my (somewhat lengthy) discussion of the Science of Ghosts event at Edinburgh Science Festival this week.  Hopefully not bored everyone to death yet!

One thing I forgot to mention in my brief comments on Richard Wiseman’s talk was just how entertaining a speaker he is – extremely funny and charismatic. His speech set the tone for the whole day; every talk used sound, video, photographs or other things to great effect. Not a single talk was dull. Also, all were pitched at a lay audience, at just about the right level I think – though this was a little frustrating at times.

After Wiseman’s talk we had a short intermission, which was fascinating. As part of the advertising for the event the organizers had run a contest to find ghost photos, and not wanting to use it without permission, the winner is here and on that link you can read all about the investigation conducted in to the photo. I was fortunate enough to hear the person who took the photo, Christopher Aitchison, speak, and I was convinced he was telling the truth. He seemed calm, mildly amused and mildly sceptical, and genuinely questioning and sincere. If I understood him correctly the figure if a real person, or even a ghost must have been some kind of spectral contortionist, as the position the face is in is very close to the ground – but I could well be wrong? Christopher ran through the history of the castle, and I wondered how many of the audience came from south of the border and might struggle with the unfamiliar kings! Anyway, certainly on the level – but still not convinced this is a ghost. Still as was mentioned, a second photo apparently showing a ghost in Tantallon Castle has since come to light . Curious! Interestingly we were told the site has no particular reputation for being haunted – till now. I’ll have a look on web  later see what I can find!

Other ghost photos discussed can be seen on a slide show from The Scotsman, but loads more on the Science of Ghosts blog here. I believe Wiseman said they had over two million hits on the site, and featured in the media worldwide. This section was a very short interlude, maybe ten minutes, but despite obvious nerves Christopher Aitchison came over as well as all the other speakers, an excellent presentation and a fascinating part of the day, one of the best bits in fact!

more follows…

The Science of Ghosts: how it went!

So what can I say about the Science of Ghosts event?

Well I have been at the Edinburgh Science Festival, and I sort of wish I was there today. I was in a planning meeting last night though for our own Festival, so keep watching this space! Anyway, the opening event was The Science of Ghosts, which attracted a great deal of media attention, and I think I can say that it was an excellent day, and you should have been there! (Unless you are Becky, in which case you were there!)

Becky drove up – it’s a terribly long way, the train is bad enough and we spent the night before trying to find the venue. There were no directions on the website, and finding accommodation and the venue were major hassles – and Richard Wiseman never replied to my enquiry email – next time I shall try Caroline. Even the Science Festival staff who were first rate overall were unable to help us as we walked around Edinburgh in a fog on friday night, seeking where we were going the next day.  If I  had not been able to call Laura Nelson and get her to perform net searches we would probably never have found the venue. Next problem was parking – this is central Edinburgh, and all the parking we could find was a) extortionate and b) maximum four hours. We asked at the uni – the sat nav had taken us to the wrong uni campus, and Edinburgh as two universities as well just to add to the fun — and no one could help. We also spoke to a nursing student, who was really friendly and helpful, but had absolutely no idea where the Anatomy Lecture theatre was!

Walking round Edinburgh in the fog is quite eerie – beautiful city, but chilly and with deep mist like something from a Jack the Ripper film. At a students suggestion we ate at Monster Mash, a little restaurant that does sausage, gravy and mash in various varieties – not much change from twenty quid, which makes me think if this is how Edinburgh students live no wonder they have huge debts, but really good service and great food. Highly recommended! It’s off Teviot Place I think.

On Saturday morning up soon after daybreak to get the bus for the seven miles from the nearest affordable accommodation – a Travelodge in Dreghorn, in to Central Edinburgh.  The Travelodge was fine, with exceptionally friendly staff and superb service – and bus pretty good as well. I must say Scots do seem very friendly, even to those of us with English accents.

So we got  to the venue, and the excellent Festival staff in their orange shirts were very welcoming. I wish I had taken names to email praise to their bosses – but thanks to all of you! About 200 people attended the session — I was hoping to meet a chap off the JREF forum, and spent a whole day clutching a PSPR (Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research) – The Scole Report actually – to give to him. Never found him, so gave it to laura in the end, and she can pass it on when she has finished with it!

First event was Richard Wiseman on Investigating ‘haunted’ locations: A scientific approach. This was on quantitative approaches to spontaneous case investigation, and to be honest I don’t think anyone who knows me would have found it particularly new. I have after all being banging on about Gertrude Schmeidler’s approach since the early 1990’s, and as Parasoc, the later CPRG and GSUK have all used various forms of quantitative assessment based on my various methodological designs, well nowt new here.

What is it? It’s when you use people recording impressions and marking them on a map and compare that data against existing witness sightings, in essence.

It is however still a minority approach in ghost investigation among parapsychologists I think (mainly because parapsychologists always strike me as woefully ignorant of the literature and the papers describing the idea were published in American parapsychological journals from the 1960s to 1983 I think, not the PSRP or JSPR - hence little known in this country.

Those interested can check out Quantitative investigation of a “haunted house”. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 1966, 60, 137-149 was the paper which inspired me to try it initially, and Quantitative investigation of a “haunted house” with sensitives and a control group. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 1968, 62, 399-410 and Quantitative investigation of a recurrent phenomenon. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 1975, 69, 341-352. I’m sure there is a 1983 paper, but I forget it!  Gertrude Schmeidler is one of the true giants of modern parapsychology, and I hope one day to meet her if she ever lectures in Britain. Google will find my own comments on experiments with these – I may try and get the data from the GSUK experiment at Tamworth Castle last summer written up properly soon, if Becky is interested in doing that. Those interested on my musings on this approach ot investigation can find it on google easily enough, on the JREF Forum, or even on some earlier posts on this blog.

Anyway Richard Wiseman did a presentation on the research he was part of at Hampton Court Palace and Edinburgh Vaults. I’m guessing a lot of readers of my blog have already read the papers – but you can read about this and learn much more on www.richardwiseman.com Furthermore you can download three of the papers by Wiseman et al on the research which are really very interesting reading, if a bit dry and technical. Have  a look!

Criticisms? I was rather surprised at the emphasis placed on the infrasound hypothesis of Tandy’s – I spoke to both Ian Hume and Tony Lawrence last year about it and both felt it had been taken further than Vic intended, and given the debunking  work of Braithwaite published in I think the EJP last year (yes Jason Braithwaite and i agree on very few things – this is one of them though!), and the ubiquity of low frequency sound in nature, I’m extremely sceptical. I saw Ciaran’s Silent Sound experiment referenced – but I have not read the paper so I’ll reserve comment for now. I’ll just not that I think from the papers that other environmental stimuli were far more important? Um… not convinced!

Generally though Richard Wiseman’s talk was a plea for environmental theories of haunting to be taken seriously by sceptics I think. Whats that?

I’ll give an example. A few years ago Becky  raised the idea that some of the phenomena associated with the Station Hotel, Dudley may be linked to seismic activity. We know that ten days before Dudley Castle featured on the Most Haunted Live show, there was a major earthquake in the vicinity. It seems likely that the underground activity may have been responsible for, and may still be responsible for, some reports of odd phenomena in the district. This is a classic environmental theory of haunting – no ghost, but something in the place making people perceive “ghosts”.  So an environmental theory is one that postulates some natural but not easily detected force is acting in ways which cause apparent ‘hauntings’.

Such ideas are currently very fashionable in parapsychology, and this has led to research like that of Wiseman et al at Edinburgh Vaults, looking for factors which may cause apparent “hauntings” seemingly with some success.

In the 1950’s the President of the Society for Psychical Research (henceforth SPR) G.W. Lambert put forward his UNDERGROUND WATER HYPOTHESIS. He argued that in fact many “hauntings” were caused by underground water, such as streams flowing underground, and that these hidden water courses could cause all manner of odd vibrations, sounds and other phenomena which were interpreted by witnesses as ghostly. He attempted to demonstrate this with particular reference to the famous Morton Case, or Cheltenham Ghost. His theory here was that the Despard family hallucinated the “lady in black” after hearing and feeling sensations caused by periods of heavy rainfall.

It would be fascinating to objectively research this against 19th century rainfall figures for Cheltenham, if such can be found, but the only “proof” he offered was that the hauntings apparently ceased following the opening of the Dowdeswell Reservoir in 1888. In fact this argument is flawed in three ways – a) the ghost was continued to be seen well in to the late twentieth century b) maps of the water table do not suggest any underground watercourse beneath the house at least in the last few decades,and it is relatively unlikely as the house (called St. Anne’s today) stands on a slight ridge between the Chelt and another river valley (Wyman’s Brook) and c) the Reservoir, while still extant, was decommisioned in the 1990’s without any noticeable effect to the water table in the area in question. Further research with Severn Trent would of course be worthwhile.

Of course the archaeologist and occultist T.C.Lethbridge had already suggested underground water may act as a battery or necessary power source for paranormal entities – his ideas were developed through his interest in dowsing. Lambert may have been providing a rationalist answer to this apparent link. What might be interesting is to bring the resources of modern geology to bear on a dozen or so “strongly haunted” spots, hunting for underground water courses.

In the early 1970’s a rival theory developed, linking paranormal activity with fault lines. The earliest version I have seen were a series of articles in the early Fortean Times (then The News) looking at possible links between UFOs and seismic activity in Leicestershire and Staffordshire. Paul Devereaux in particular looked at “earthlights”, lights that seem to appear around areas of seismic stress. It has been suggested that quartz under pressure may produce light effects, or electrical fields which may have some effect on the human brain (see the work of Dr Serena Roney-Dougal.) The problem with this theory is that Britain has mainly tiny faults in the west of the country – yet East Anglia for instance appears very haunted, at least to a casual observer! I did some research on this in the 1990s, which was discussed on a TV show, which suggested that South Gloucestershire haunts did indeed cluster around fault likes, or junctures of fault lines. This was suggestive, but further research is desperately needed before we can draw any conclusions.

Devereaux also drew attention to the fact that most megalithic tumuli and henges seem to cluster around fault lines. I have a sneaky suspicion this may have more to do with geology though and natural reasons than Earth Mysteries – the west of England,where such things are found, is fairly hilly and I suspect that most tumuli and henges in the East where ploughing and arable farming weremore lucrative have long since been destroyed by intensive agriculture, whereas in sheep and cattle farming areas the have survived. As near surface faulting is more common in hilly and rocky areas, we might therefore expect to find a correlation between tumuli and faulting, but not a mystical or paranormal one!

So the question remains – can earthquakes, tremors and seismic activity cause apparent “haunting” phenomena? I believe the answer is yes, probably – earthquakes seem to have an effect on animals and therefore probably on humans, but I do not think we need worry about much more than vibration and shaking occurring – the electrical and earthlight ideas are interesting, but tremors felt unconsciously as Becky has suggested may well be enough. There is, however, still one piece of experimental evidence against the theory to be considered.

The major physical movement of objects has long since been noted as a feature of Poltergeist (RSPK) cases. In the 1970’s SPR veteran researcher Tony Cornell decided to test this hypothesis, in association with I believe a Cambridgeshire council. He arranged for access to a council house which was about to be demolished, placed articles in several rooms, and then had the house literally shaken to pieces by large industrial machinery/ He remained inside as long as it was safe to do so, observing, and then had cameras which filmed until the house actually collapsed. The footage was shown on Anglia TV – I’d love to see it again, as am recollecting from memory of an event many years ago.

Now what the experiment seemed to demonstrate is that vibration caused major cracks in walls etc before any objects flew as they do in poltergeist cases. The vibration would be extremely obvious to a human observer long before any apparently paranormal motion was detected!

Now I know bugger all about geology or earthquakes, but I will raise three quick replies to this problem…

1. The vibration in the experiment was as I recall provided horizontally, by a belt or chain around the structure. In a tremor, he pressure would be vertical – the actual source of movement deep underground.

2. Objects did of course move under vibration. the moved slowly, over a period of time – just as the object at the Station Hotel on the infamous Most Haunted footage did.

3. I suspect the higher up a building you might be, the more you would feel the effects. Room 214 is on the second (3rd US) floor, high above the road, and at the bottom of a major hill, built in to the slope. While I believe it is too high for traffic to cause th motion see on the footage, it does strike me as entirely possible the movement of the chair could be caused by underground activity.

Anyway this should mean you are up to speed on what is meant by an environmental theory of ghosts – and apart from a strong doubt on my part about the idea of confabulation and “paranormal experience” narratives growing with time, which I queried at the end of the day briefly – more research needed, and I think it would make a fascinating PhD if i can find funding, as probably outside the scope of Becky’s — anyway that takes us to the end of the first session, and 10am. Er, given there are seven more sessions to describe I think I shall take a break and return to this shortly with a Part Two!

cj x