Be careful what you wish for...especially if you wish you were a king.

Another bad day at work or at school, not exactly nice news concerning your bank statement or pocket money, another bill to pay, another gray, sad day to face without anything exciting to look forward to…Have you ever wanted to be somebody of importance, a prince or a princess? Perhaps you have even imagined your life as such a person. Your servants would do what they can to keep you happy, arranging plenty of entertainment and nice meals every single day…you could pursue any interest you want to, visit a lot of interesting places regardless of cost…you would enjoy a nice company of kind, intelligent people who would be honoured by your patronage…you could marry whoever you fancy…right? Wrong. Let me confront your dream with reality. Its name is Ludwig II of Bavaria (Ludwig Otto Friedrich Wilhelm sometimes rendered as Louis II in English). He was a real prince and the heir to the Bavarian throne. His life was not a bed of roses, though, far from it.


Born in Nymphenburg Palace (today located in suburban Munich), he was the eldest son of Maximilian II of Bavaria and his wife Princess Marie of Prussia. The boy who would later be known by many nicknames, the Swan King, the Mad King of Bavaria, the Dream King, and Mad Ludwig among them, spent much of his youth in a castle named Hohenschwangau (it means “high region of the swan”). Maybe because of that even as a 12-year-old boy Ludwig had already developed a fascination with Wagner’s Lohengrin and its Swan Knight.

The Bavarian royal family with Ludwig on the left and his younger brother, Otto, on the right (via Wikipedia)

Did he had a happy, “princely” childhood? To put it in a nutshell, no. Like many young heirs in an age when kings governed most of European countries, Ludwig was continually reminded of his royal status, both extremely indulged and severely controlled by his tutors and subjected to a truly Spartan regimen of study and exercise. There are some who point to these stresses of growing up in a royal family as the causes for much of his odd behavior as an adult. Ludwig was not close with either of his parents. King Maximilian's advisers had suggested that on his daily walks he might like, at times, to be accompanied by his future successor. The King replied, "But what am I to say to him? After all, my son takes no interest in what other people tell him." Later, Ludwig would refer to his mother as "my predecessor's consort" – it sounds sad but he really didn’t have any closer bond with her. He was far closer to his grandfather, the deposed and notorious King Ludwig I, who came from a family of eccentrics. Birds of a feather…

Now about nice company. As an adolescent, Ludwig befriended his aide de camp, Prince Paul, of Bavaria's wealthy Thurn and Taxis family. The two young men rode together, read poetry aloud, and staged scenes from the Romantic operas of Richard Wagner. The friendship ended when Paul became engaged in 1866. During his youth Ludwig also initiated a lifelong friendship with his half-first cousin once removed, Duchess Elisabeth in Bavaria, later Empress of Austria also known as Sissi. They loved nature and poetry; Elisabeth called Ludwig "Eagle" and he called her "Dove." As Elisabeth married very early, as a sixteen-year-old girl, they didn’t have much time together as well.

Crown Prince Ludwig had just turned 18 when his father died and he ascended the Bavarian throne. Although he was not fully prepared for high office, his youth and brooding good looks made him popular in Bavaria and elsewhere. You might think – a perfect opportunity for the young man to take the life in his own hands and show his mettle. Well, easier said than done.

Looking back in 1873, Ludwig described it thus:

"I became king much too early. I had not learned enough. I had made such a good beginning ... with the learning of state laws. Suddenly I was snatched away from my books and set on the throne. Well, I am still trying to learn..."


Ludwig’s first year of reign did not go well, and the already shy young king soon withdrew even more, away from Munich and into his beloved mountains in the Bavarian Alps. He was notably eccentric in ways that made serving as Bavaria’s head of state problematic. He disliked large public functions and avoided formal social events whenever possible, and preferred a life of fantasy that he pursued with various creative projects. The king enjoyed traveling in the Bavarian countryside, pretending to be a medieval feudal lord and chatting with farmers he met along the way. He also delighted in rewarding those who were hospitable to him during his travels with lavish gifts.

In May of that same year Ludwig had his first meeting with his music idol Richard Wagner.
Wagner's operas appealed to the king's fantasy-filled imagination and filled an emotional void. On 4 May 1864, the 51-year-old Wagner was given an unprecedented 1¾ hour audience with Ludwig in the Royal Palace in Munich. Later the composer wrote of his first meeting with Ludwig:

Young king Ludwig II 

"Alas, he is so handsome and wise, soulful and lovely, that I fear that his life must melt away in this vulgar world like a fleeting dream of the gods."

He definitely had a point there. The king settled Wagner's considerable debts, and proposed to stage Tristan, Die Meistersinger, the Ring, and other operas Wagner planned. It seemed the king finally found a kindred spirit but the composer’s extravagant and scandalous behaviour in the capital was so unsettling for the conservative people of Bavaria, that Ludwig was forced to ask Wagner to leave the city six months later, in December 1865. The king apparently also toyed with the idea of abdicating in order to follow his hero into exile, but Wagner quickly dissuaded him (it's good to have a royal paying your debts after all). Wagner might be considered a brilliant composer but during his life he also gained the reputation as an exploiter, a womanizer and a crook, constantly on the run from creditors – definitely a controversial figure, not exactly the right company for any young man, let alone a young ruler.

The opportunity arose for poor Ludwig to act also as a knight and a warrior. Relations with Prussia took centre stage starting in 1866. During the Seven Weeks' War, which began in July, Ludwig agreed (as did several other German principalities) to take the side of Austria against Prussia. When the two sides negotiated the war’s settlement, the terms required that Ludwig accept a mutual defense treaty with Prussia. This treaty placed Bavaria back on the firing line three years later, when the Franco-Prussian War broke out. Prussia and her allies prevailed in this conflict, and an emboldened Prussia now finished her campaign to unify all of the minor German kingdoms into one German Empire under the rule of King Wilhelm I of Prussia, who would now be declared Emperor, or Kaiser.At the request of Prussian Minister President Bismarck (and in exchange for certain financial concessions), Ludwig wrote a letter (the so-called Kaiserbrief) in December 1870 endorsing the creation of the German Empire. With the creation of the Empire, however, Bavaria lost its status as an independent kingdom and became just another dependent state. Ludwig attempted to protest by refusing to attend the ceremony where Wilhelm I was proclaimed the first Kaiser but it was too little too late. From then on, Bavaria's foreign policy was dictated by Prussia and the king was only a "vassal" of his Prussian uncle. In fact Ludwig proved to be just another king-puppet (a.k.a. a constitutional monarch with some rights and duties but little actual freedom of action), not a great knight in shiny armour. Small wonder that after the creation of the greater Germany, Ludwig increasingly withdrew from politics, and devoted himself to one of his beloved hobbies - different creative projects, most famously his castles, where he was finally in control of everything, personally approving every detail of the architecture, decoration and furnishing. He built a fantasy world around him in which he could feel he was a real king.

What about the love life of our sweet prince? Unfortunately it was as far from fairy tale standards as possible as well. Ludwig got engaged to Duchess Sophie of Bavaria (in the photograph on the left), his cousin and the youngest sister of his dear friend Empress Elisabeth of Austria, mentioned above. The engagement was publicized on 22 January 1867, but people soon noticed the strange lack of affection between young couple. There were even rumours that Sophie fell in love with a photographer who took her photos as the future queen and didn't care about her fiance. After repeatedly postponing the wedding date, Ludwig finally cancelled it in October. That night he wrote in his diary:

"Sophie is finished with. The gloomy picture vanishes. I longed for freedom, I thirsted for freedom, to wake from this horrible nightmare."

Hmm…strange reaction but maybe not so much if you know that throughout his reign, Ludwig went through a succession of very close friendships with men, including his chief equerry and Master of the Horse, handsome and blond Richard Hornig (1843–1911), Hungarian theatre actor Josef Kainz, and a courtier AlfonsWeber. In a diary the king kept, not unlike a contemporary tormented teenager or a movie star, he recorded some private thoughts considering the attempts to suppress some sexual desires and remain true to his Roman Catholic faith. Ludwig's original diaries from 1869 were lost during World War II, and all that remains today are copies of entries during the 1886 plot to depose him. These transcribed diary entries, along with private letters and other surviving personal documents, suggest that Ludwig was homosexual and struggled with his orientation throughout his life. Homosexuality had not been punishable in Bavaria since 1813 but still it was not perceived the right thing for a royalty or indeed any decent person. Small wonder poor Ludwig used his personal fortune to fund the construction of a series of elaborate castles. I suppose it was his way to compensate for the lack of happy, fulfilling relationship; some people drink, some people eat chocolate, some people build one castle after another…Finally one hobby and pleasure nobody would criticize a king for…or wouldn’t they?

Unfortunately building a big fat fairy-tale style castle can be disastrous for your finances, even if you descend from a family of means; Ludwig built several of them and these constructions weren’t supposed to be self-financing either. Figures for the total costs between 1869 and 1886 for the building and equipping of each castle were published in 1968: Schloß Neuschwanstein 6,180,047 marks; Schloß Linderhof 8,460,937 marks ; Schloß Herrenchiemsee (from 1873) 16,579,674 marks. Guide books of the time give 20 German marks = £1 sterling. Of course he gave employment and revived the economy in the region but you can have too much of a good thing - the king definitely was going over the top with the number of his projects. How many castles are needed in such a small country as Bavaria used to be? Mind you, building castles was not the only passion of Ludwig .

King Ludvig towards the end of his life via Wikipedia

Between 1872 and 1885, the king had 209 private performances (Separatvorstellungen) given for himself alone or with a guest, in the two court theatres, comprising 44 operas (28 by Wagner, including eight of Parsifal), 11 ballets and 154 plays (the principal theme being Bourbon France) at a cost of 97,300 marks. The King complained to the theatre actor-manager Ernst Possart: "I can get no sense of illusion in the theatre so long as people keep staring at me, and follow my every expression through their opera-glasses. I want to look myself, not to be a spectacle for the masses." We can understand such a feeling better nowadays as these performances can be compared with watching TV at home or going to the cinema but at that time it was considered a rather weird attitude. People went to an opera or a theatre not only because they wanted to listen and watch but mostly because they wanted to be seen and heard and they wanted to see and hear the others. Social events were truly social, it was one of their charms.

Although the king had paid for his pet projects out of his Privy Purse and not the state coffers, that did not necessarily spare Bavaria from financial fallout. By 1885, the king was 14 million marks in debt, had borrowed heavily from his family, and, rather than economizing, as his financial ministers advised him, he undertook new opulence and new designs without pause. He demanded that loans be sought from all of Europe's royalty, and remained aloof from matters of state. Feeling harassed and irritated by his ministers, he considered dismissing the entire cabinet and replacing them with fresh faces. The cabinet decided to act first.
Seeking a cause to depose Ludwig by constitutional means, the rebelling ministers decided on the rationale that he was, like his younger brother, Otto, mentally ill, and unable to rule. They asked Ludwig's uncle, Prince Luitpold, to step into the royal vacancy once Ludwig was deposed. Luitpold agreed, so long as the conspirators produced reliable proof that the king was in fact helplessly insane.

Between January and March 1886, the conspirators assembled the Ärztliches Gutachten or Medical Report, on Ludwig's fitness to rule. Most of the details in the report were compiled by Count von Holnstein, who was disillusioned with Ludwig and actively sought his downfall. Holnstein used his high rank to extract a long list of complaints, accounts, and gossip about Ludwig from among the king's servants.

Was Ludwig II of Bavaria insane? Could you believe the accounts of servants, simple people, some of them undoubtedly testifying under pressure, bribed or intimidated or both? These were the main points which made the case:

• · Ludwig was known to take moonlit rides in an elaborate sleigh with servants dressed in 18th century livery,
• · the king had bad table manners (sic!),
• · He rowed in a shell shaped boat around Linderhof Palace while listening to operatic performances,
• · He would sit in a mirrored room in Linderhof at night, and enjoy a dazzling display of candlelight and the optical illusion of a room without end,
• · He was holding night-time picnics while his male servants danced naked in the moonlight,
• · From 1875 on he lived at night and slept during the day,
• · He had a penchant for fantasy, and indulged this with too many elaborate building projects,
• · He was rumored to have frequently dined alone in Linderhof, insisting that his servants set a place for his imaginary guests,

There are many modern doctors who believe Ludwig II was suffering from Asperger Syndrome - an autism spectrum disorder that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. The king's behavior greatly supports that belief. For people not knowing anything about that illness, though, the king might appear strange or even insane especially if it suited their purposes. In my opinion a major point in favor of King Ludwig II was that he used much of his own money for his eccentricities, including his castles, and not the coffers of Bavaria. He showed a greater understanding of his country's financial needs and a greater responsibility than many contemporary politicians.

The king’s friends and allies urged him to flee, or to show himself in Munich and thus regain the support of the people. Ludwig hesitated, issuing a statement instead:

"The Prince Luitpold intends, against my will, to ascend to the Regency of my land, and my erstwhile ministry has, through false allegations regarding the state of my health, deceived my beloved people, and is preparing to commit acts of high treason. [...] I call upon every loyal Bavarian to rally around my loyal supporters to thwart the planned treason against the King and the fatherland."

The government succeeded in suppressing the statement by seizing most copies of the newspaper and handbills. As the king, unused to solving a domestic crisis or generally a crisis of any kind, dithered, his support waned. Peasants who rallied to his cause were dispersed, and the police who guarded his castle were replaced by a police detachment of 36 men who sealed off all entrances. Now he was trapped inside. In the early hours of 12 June, a second commission arrived. The King was seized just after midnight and at 4 a.m. taken to a waiting carriage. He had asked Dr. von Gudden, who led the assailants, "How can you declare me insane? After all, you have never seen or examined me before." only to be told that "it was unnecessary; the documentary evidence (so the servants' tittle-tattle, nothing more substantial) is very copious and completely substantiated. It is overwhelming." Ludwig was transported to Castle Berg on the shores of Lake Starnberg, south of Munich.

On 13 June 1886, around 6:00 pm, Ludwig asked von Gudden to accompany him on a walk through the Schloß Berg parkland along the shore of Lake Starnberg. Gudden agreed; the walk may even have been his suggestion, and he told the nurses not to accompany them. His words were ambiguous ("Es darf kein Pfleger mitgehen") and whether they were meant to follow at a discreet distance is not clear. The two men were last seen at about 6.30; they were due back at eight but never returned. After searches were made for more than three hours by the entire castle personnel in a gale with heavy rain, at 11:30 that night the bodies of both the King and Gudden were found, floating in the shallow water near the shore. The King's watch had stopped at 6.54. As usual, gendarmes patrolling the park had heard and seen nothing.

Ludwig's death was officially ruled a suicide by drowning, but this has been questioned ever since. Ludwig was known to be a strong swimmer in his youth, the water was less than waist-deep where his body was found; what’s more the official autopsy report indicated that no water was found in his lungs. Ludwig had expressed suicidal feelings during the crisis, but the suicide theory does not fully explain Gudden's death.
Many hold that Ludwig was murdered by his enemies while attempting to escape from Berg. One account even suggests that the king was shot. However, there was no evidence of scars or wounds found on the body of the dead king. Another theory suggests that Ludwig died of natural causes (such as a heart attack or a stroke) brought on by the extreme cold (12°C) water of the lake during an escape attempt. Perhaps after hearing a shot he fell into water and died of shock. Still in such a scenario the death of Gudden would remain a mystery – was he killed as an unwanted witness? Did he drown trying to rescue the king? Was he drowned with the king by unknown criminals? Was it just a bad accident without any witnesses?


The King was succeeded by his brother Otto, but since Otto was genuinely incapacitated by mental illness, the king’s uncle Luitpold remained regent.
One of Ludwig’s most quoted sayings was "I wish to remain an eternal enigma to myself and to others." He certainly managed that much - what really happened to Ludwig II and Dr. von Gudden that night will probably be a mystery forever.

Sources:

http://www.german-way.com/ludwig.html

http://www.schwangau.de/en/king_ludwig2.html

http://nevermore.tripod.com/ludwig.html

http://www.squidoo.com/kingludwig

Ludwig II, the Mad King of Bavaria, by Desmond Chapman-Houston, Dorset Press New York, 1990.

Review: Vampire Empire Book 1: The Greyfriar by Clay & Susan Griffith

Paperback: 320 pages

Publisher: Pyr (November 18, 2010)

Language: English

ISBN-10: 1616142472

Genre: steampunk, fantasy

Synopsis:

1870 seemed to be the beginning of the end of the human race - vampires, half mythical creatures lurking in the shadows since time immemorial - finally came out of their graveyards and tombs. They decided to attack western civilizations in the northern zone, climatically the best suited for them, and by doing so to gain access to unlimited free food supplies. The civilized world of humans, totally unprepared for such an enemy, collapsed under the attack in a matter of five years. Human leaders fled south, creating new countries in Africa, South America and Asia while those of their former subjects who were left behind became blood slaves of the conquerors.

A century and a half later, the world remains divided between the vampire and human zones which might be called the North (vampires) and the South (people). Every side prepares to war as nobody is satisfied with their current status quo. Humans rely on the advance of their technology – steel, chemical weapons, quick-firing arms and airships- ignoring the spiritual field and religions of any denomination. Vampires rely on their superior senses and ruthlessness. It seems all sides are in for a surprise.

The Equatorian heiress to the throne, Princess Adele, with her younger brother, Simon, is on a state tour of the northern border free city-states (like Marseilles) when British vampire-in-chief Prince Cesare organizes a successful kidnapping action. The stranded princess meets a mysterious half-legendary (and obviously very lonely) freedom fighter, known as the Greyfriar, but even his amazing skills are not able to save her – she is taken to London and held as a hostage. This event, though, seals a treaty between the two human superpowers, Equatoria and America, and a plan to attack jointly the vampire empires in Europe. After all Princess Adele has recently got engaged to a powerful American senator Clark, a renowned vampire killer, to make such an attack not only possible but also successful. Now she is missing in action - will her fiance be able to save her from the clutches of one of the most cruel vampire warlords? Will this experience change Adele’s outlook on life? Are all vampires as bad as they seem to be?

 

Vampire lore:

The authors decided to present vampires in a different way for what I am truly grateful. Firstly vampires are born not made; they constitute simply a different species apart from the Homo Sapiens; they also age and some of them don't age well. While vampires need humans to survive, humans would be better off without such deadly parasites.

Secondly vampires come with flaws – apart from the fact that not all of them are beautiful their sense of touch is very limited (so they don’t feel pain when injured, even very seriously, but they are also a tad clumsy) and their creativeness is pretty much non-existent. Most of them can’t read or write (well, what’s the point, after all, when you live over 800 years and have seen all these historical events?). High temperatures make them sluggish and drowsy – apparently they can’t survive in tropical climate for long. Vampires’ main defense mechanisms are their sight, smell and hearing, superior even to the senses of dogs and cats, their fastness and the fact that they can regenerate very quickly. They can also fly (or maybe rather float changing their density at will) and they speak their own language (but if they want to they can learn human languages as well.)

What I liked:

When I first heard and read about this book I immediately assumed it was intended to appeal to young adult female readers and, as such, ride the well-worn coattails of Twilight - a romantic trio etc etc. The word “steampunk” and some reviews, posted before the release, caught my attention, though. Well, it is an example that you really shouldn’t judge a book by the cover (and the cover of this book is quite nice btw).

The Griffith's have created a very interesting world and their take on the vampires is unique. The book might be also perceived as a paranormal futuristic spin to the Cold War. The story line is fast-paced (but if you are a more demanding reader you should ignore the plausibility factor from time to time) and the characters – well-rounded. I also loved the mixture of different themes, scattered around the plot: I found some borrowings from “Romeo and Juliet”, “Zorro”, “Beauty and the Beast”, “V for Vendetta”, “The North and the South” – the list might be continued! I am also curious about the future clash of spirituality and technology in Equatoria – it really sounds good!

Last but not the least: both male and female main leads are very likeable. There is no romantic triangle in view (well done!). I found Princess Adele to be a compassionate, resourceful, and truly kick-ass heroine despite her high position. The Greyfriar turns out to be far more complex than an ordinary “Zorro-type” hero who saves damsels in distress (and I really can’t write anything more because it would be a huge spoiler).

What I didn’t like:

I must admit it - some of the scenes were a bit cheesy,  kind of taken straight from a B class adventure movie (or a graphic novel). I also hope there will be more politics and less slaughter in the next parts– I do understand some fighting scenes are necessary in such a book but honestly, after a while you might feel a bit tired by the cadavers and the carnage. It is good when the characters can plan and think, not only wield a sabre.

The final verdict:

So far so good but let’s wait for other installments – it is supposed to be a trilogy, after all!

40 Famous Females and Their All-Time Favorite Reads

It seems that behind every famous woman there is at least one famous book which has helped her making an outstanding career. Preity Smith contacted me sending the link to one awesome article that shows clearly how true that statement is. Here is one excerpt:

"Famous women, whether they’re actresses, journalists, writers or athletes, can serve as role models to women, and men, all around the world. While you probably shouldn’t emulate everything these famous women do, when it comes to reading they can help recommend some seriously great books you might not have to read for college or know to pick up at your local library. Here are forty celebrity women and the books they love, which might just become the books you love too."

Would you like to find out more? Here is the link to the whole list:

http://www.associatesdegree.com/2010/11/30/40-famous-females-and-their-all-time-favorite-reads/

 ENJOY!

Image via Wikipedia

Emblematic still life with flagon, glass, jug and bridle.

The title of this painting should rather be: "Emblematic and mysterious (but now totally still) life of Johannes Torrentius". Let me explain you why. First, though, I would like you to pay closer

attention to the inscription painted over sheet music at the bottom of this picture. It reads:

ER + Wat buten maat bestaat, int onmaats qaat verghaat.

Translation (one of the versions at least, the second one will be presented later): 'That which exists out of measure perishes in evil immeasurably'.
ER + means most probably: Eques Rosae Crucis, Knight of the Rose Cross.

The only known Torrentius painting with the seal of King Charles I on it – the one presented above - was discovered by J.J. van Deinse in a grocery store in the eastern Dutch town of Enschede; it had served as the lid on a barrel with raisins. This fact and an essay I’ve read long ago made me incredibly curious about the life of its author; searching here and there I found ton of surprises and some secrets as well.

Let me present our hero.  He was originally called Johannes Simonsz (so the son of Simon) van de Beeck (literally: of the brook). His Latin pseudonym, Torrentius, is derived from the word torrens; as an adjective is means rushing, seething, burning, parched but as a noun “a rapid brook”, a torrent”  – two opposite elements, fire and water, in one name. After reading biographies of this Dutch painter I had to admit he chose his nom-de guerre with simply prophetic intuition.

He was born in Amsterdam in 1589. Nothing is known of his childhood or the apprenticeship years, who taught him and how long. We know, however, that at the beginning of his independent artistic career Torrentius was not only popular but also rich – no mean feat in a country famous of such great painters as Rembrandt and Frans Hals. Constantijn Huygens, the secretary to Frederik Hendrik, Prince of Orange, rated Torrentius even higher than Rembrandt, imagine that. He claimed that the painter was a real miracle-worker in the depiction of lifeless objects, so fashionable and prized by the connoisseurs. It wasn’t Torrentius’s only specialty, though. The second one was far more scandalous - obscene genre scenes, sometimes presented in mythological settings, a kind of smut for the rich. As you see he was a very different character from the usual workmanlike Dutch painter of the 17th century - perhaps he was a knight but not in the true sense of the word. Huyghens was well aware of that. He added: ”When it comes to the life and mores of that man I will not like Cato judge him”. These were kind words indeed as Huygens also mentions Torrentius’s atheism and how he ridiculed the Bible. What’s more, Johannes was a libertine, blasphemer and womanizer. It seems that in his heydays the painter behaved much like a modern-day pop star or any other naughty celebrity, causing havoc wherever he decided to show up with his own retinue of men and women. He used to wander from an inn to a pub, from a pub to a public house and his feasts were long, loud and shockingly lewd, allegedly including drinking a toast to the devil and group sex with prostitutes. Some people called him just an epicurean, others used more harsh words: “in summa seductor civium, impostor populi, corruptor iuventutis, stupator feminarum" (my own not very good translation:  ” in short a man who beguiled citizens, duped people, corrupted youth, broke faith with women”).

Torrentius was supposedly a handsome guy (but IMHO not in the only portrait of him I managed to find, well, see it yourself on the right); he dressed according to the latest fashion and his style was elegant and refined. He led a life of rich and famous, he had a lackey and a horse. Torrentius married in 1612 but soon enough the relations between him and his wife, Neeltgen van Camp, soured and ended in a divorce. Well, he had it coming for sure. He was even briefly thrown into jail for failing to pay his former wife her alimony in 1621. Perhaps he forgot or maybe he was too busy to remember. That short stint was just a thin end of the wedge, a harbinger of darker times ahead. Six years afterwards, in 1627, Torrentius was accused of being a Rosicrucian, adherent of atheistic and Satanic beliefs.

Rosicrucianism was a secret society of mystics, said to have been founded in late medieval Germany by Christian Rosenkreuz. It holds a doctrine or theology "built on esoteric truths of the ancient past", which, "concealed from the average man, provide insight into nature, the physical universe and the spiritual realm”. It was associated with Protestantism and in particular Lutheranism.
The Rosicrucians initially enjoyed a great degree of hospitality in Netherlands but it did not last long. Protestant orthodoxy simply didn’t tolerate the freedom of investigation of the Rosicrucians, nor did they accept their philosophical theories alien to the Bible.

Image via Wikipedia

In 1623 an investigation was made against the Fraternity of the Rose-Croix by the assembled Councils of Holland, Zealand and Friesland and the Faculty of Theology of Leyden was asked for their opinion. This opinion stated that certain persons calling themselves Brothers of the Rose-Croix, who have had their residence in the City of Paris, had now come to the United Provinces and that they were occupied in matters very detrimental to the interests of the State, and that their sect was very unorthodox. Their decision was communicated to Magistrates of Haarlem with a request that a certain Torrentius, as one of the principal adherents of the sect, be particularly watched. The Rosicrucians of Holland held their meetings in Prince of Orange’s own Palace at the Noordeinde Street in The Hague but apparently his protectorate meant little.

Torrentius as a defendant behaved with intelligence and dignity; he didn’t plead guilty so he was tortured. Soon it was obvious the verdict had been passed even before the process started - no attention was given to witnesses for the defense, no possibility for an appeal was offered. On January 25, 1628 a judgment from five noted advocates of The Hague pronounced him guilty of "blasphemy against God and avowed atheism, at the same time as leading a frightful and pernicious lifestyle”. His works were ordered to be burned; their author - sentenced to be burned alive as well, but the sentence was commuted to one of 20 years’ imprisonment in the Tuchthuis (the Haarlem house of detention) - a slow and cruel death of a long-forgotten prisoner. Imagine the situation: a highly successful and very popular painter with friends in very high places, some of them being members of the same fraternity, is all of a sudden sentenced in an almost inquisitorial and definitely unjust process. The verdict was excessive, even by 17th century standards – in order to see how excessive, let’s compare it with two other cases.

In 1596 an ambitious shoemaker was accused of blasphemy. The man had taught himself Latin and Hebrew so he could study the Bible in original languages. During these studies he reached a conclusion that Christ was only a human being. He decided to share this knowledge with his family and friends. He could have been burned at the stake but one of the Amsterdam’s mayors decided that the Church had already punished the shoemaker, expelling him from the fold; he was set free. In 1642 a Francis van den Meurs was imprisoned in Amsterdam. He didn’t believe in the Divine nature of Christ and the immortality of human soul and dared to announce it to all and sundry. After seven months of confinement he was set free too. No tortures, no disgrace, no long-term sentences.

The difference in treatment and punishment of Torrentius was indeed huge. Of course the painter loved scandal more than his own job and yes, he led a dissolute life and crowed about it in a society proud of its prudishness. These accusations would hardly qualify as good reasons to sentence anybody to be burnt alive or to 20 years in prison, though. There must have been something more serious, a political reason no doubt. Small wonder Torrentius’s friends in high places decided to intervene as soon as the dust settled a bit.

After having been notified by Sir Dudley Carleton, the British ambassador in The Hague, Charles I of England brought about Torrentius's release in 1629 with the strong support of the Prince of Orange. The painter had to pay huge court costs and solemnly swear that he would go to England immediately and never return to Holland again. Of course Torrentius did what he was told, keeping  in mind the alternative - he went into exile. In England he was hired by the king as Court Painter. Charles I got a genius artist in return and rather cheaply so the deal seemed to be sweet for both sides. Nobody knows what Torrentius was really doing in England and how he perceived the new situation. He allegedly resumed his former profession though without his former success, according to Walpole in his "Painters in the Reign of Charles I”: "giving more scandal than satisfaction". Well, scandal was also one of his specialties after all; if the king didn’t know it he must have been deaf and blind.

Image via Wikipedia

Torrentius stayed in England for 12 years, and then, around 1642, decided to return to Amsterdam . I really can’t guess or understand why he did that for. It is true this date coincides with a major unrest on the British Isles, namely the First Civil War (with two others on the horizon) as a result of which the king literally lost his head, but really nobody in their right mind would return to a homeland where a long prison sentence awaited them at best. I suppose Torrentius could have chosen another court and another country even if he had to leave England causing one scandal too many. He returned home. Perhaps he was dead tired of unstable life at a court and/or of having a king as a sponsor; maybe the painter wanted to live again on his own. Perhaps he was homesick and he thought that his compatriots had forgotten about him and would let him be. If the latter was true he couldn’t have been more wrong. The move was simply suicidal. The second process ensued almost immediately (after all he did break his word ) but we know close to nothing about the charges. We only know Torrentius was tortured again. He died a broken man two years after returning, in 1644, most likely as a result of the rough treatment. I wasn't able to find whether he died in prison or at home. His paintings died with him, apart from this one; ironically it was saved for a very mundane reason - just because a shopkeeper needed a lid for his barrel. The ghosts of other pictures exist only as very short descriptions scattered here and there.

In the inventory of the collection of Charles Ist we find a rather concise but meaningful note about three unknown paintings of Torrentius: „One is an Adam and Eve, his flesshe uery ruddy, theye show there syde face. The other is a woman pissing in a mans eare. The last of those 3 is a young woman sitting somwhat odly with her hand under her legg".Definitely scandalous stuff. Kramm, writing in the first middle of 17th century describes a painting entitled “The Portrait of a Theologian”. The painting consisted of two pannels, one covering the other, not unlike La Maya Desnuda and La Maya Vestida painted by Francisco Goya century or so later; in the first, you could see the said theologian, no problem. What do you think would be in the other? A biblical scene? A landscape? A metaphor of diligence or piety? No it was a scene from a whorehouse, rendered in a very artistic way but definitely shocking in comparison.

Image via Wikipedia

At the end, let's return to the painting, presented above. The bridle is a warning to keep your desire in check. The page of music contains the text which other version of  translation I would like to quote now. It says: 'If you ignore the tempo, you will succumb to untempered evil.' It is a warning that one should maintain a sense of right proportion in life, just as in music. Overindulgence in drinking or smoking tobacco should be curbed for your own good. That's why the water flagon and wine jug flank the roemer (the big translucent wine glass in the middle was called roemer), for if wine is diluted with water its intoxicating effect is tempered. Nice and very virtuous but...the text itself contains a mistake (one word - 'qaat' - lacks a letter; it should be written 'quaat' meaning 'bad') and that mistake is repeated in the score ('h' note instead of 'b' note) - an example of 'diabolus in musica', the intentional breach of harmony. Two mistakes in the same place...done on purpose or just a coincidence? Was it a meaningful wink at a more incisive viewer?  Did it mean the painter himself didn't intend to agree with the message of his painting?  Torrentius at his best – I can almost hear his laughter.

My sources:

http://rosaecrucius.blogspot.com/2008/08/ian-s-torrentius-pictor-et-eques-rosae.html
http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Torrentius
http://books.google.pl/books?id=drtcRegkDQ4C&dq=torrentius&source=gbs_navlinks_shttp://www.eximus.14lo.lublin.pl/belfer/martwa_natura.htm

Uit het Land van Katoen en Heide, part I (1925) by J.J. van Deinse, article "Een merkwaardige vondst", page 466 - 477

Silent Sunday 4 December

Busting the Newbie Blues

If you are a blogger you can share your expertise (or lack of thereof - in my case at least) participating in this nice event. First visit here and then take the right questionnaire, answer the questions and post them on your blog. I decided to participate just to summarize my several blogging months so far. Thanks Small Review for coming up with such a good idea and organizing  the event! I love the button btw!

• When did you start your blog? I started this year in June. I was bored. 
• Why did you start your blog? Because I was encouraged to do so and I found it a great way to share my passion - reading books - and share my views.
• What has been the biggest challenge you’ve faced so far? Did you make any mistakes new bloggers can learn from? The biggest challenge...writting in more or less flawless English. It is not my mother tongue, you know. Mistakes....er... just look around. There have been plenty of them. I have had problems with the design of my blog too. Patience is the key - that and a good dictionary.
• What did you find most discouraging about being a new blogger? How did you deal with this? Lack of time can discourage you ok. Lack of followers and comments too. You visit other blogs and you see there are over 500 followers or more and you think 'I am a lousy blogger, I have nothing interesting to say, I will never ever have so many comments...'How do I deal? I keep remembering why I am doing this - for fun, for joy, for fun for joy...etc..and I eat chocolate.
• What do you find most encouraging? When somebody decides to follow and/or  comment I am overjoyed and so grateful I could kiss my elderly neighbour (and you should see her to understand the scale of my joy...)
• What do you like best about the blogs you read? Have you tried to replicate this in your blog? When I read a great review I almost always try to replicate it but in my own fashion.I like honest, open opinions and good sense of humour.
• What do you dislike about blogs you’ve read? Do you try to avoid this? I dislike repetitiveness of style. I dislike insincere comments.
• Do you have any advice for new bloggers? Find your own voice and keep it. Be honest no matter what. Have fun and learn new things all the time.
• How did you bring your blog to the attention of so many people? Er...really not a question I can answer. I have 16 followers. I appreciate their presence very much although it is not a huge crowd. I am not sure I want a lot of followers. Quality not quantity.
• Is there anything else you’d like to share about your experience? No, that's all I suppose.

Review: “When Will There Be Good News?” by Kate Atkinson

Synopsis:

This book is a continuation of two previous novels - Case Histories and One Good Turn- featuring again private detective Jackson Brodie and Chief Inspector Louise Monroe. In fact it takes place about three years after One Good Turn. Although it is a stand-alone novel, knowing the plot of the previous ones definitely helps – otherwise you might feel a bit lost among ex-husbands, ex-wives, children and ex-partners.

The story opens with a horrifying act of violence involving the family of 6-six year old Joanna, who survives against the odds and goes on becoming a successful physician. She has a handsome husband, an infant son, she employs a mother’s help in the person of sixteen-year-old Regina Chase a.k.a. Reggie, she lives in a nice house, she drives a Prius– an epitome of middle-class successful modern woman. All of a sudden Joanna is missing; only Reggie thinks something might be seriously wrong. The girl alerts Detective Chief Inspector Louise Monroe but Louise cannot be persuaded. After serving 30 years in prison, the murderer of Joanna's family is released and she believes Joanna’s sudden disappearance was caused by it – the woman didn’t want to face journalists and her tragic past once again. On the other hand Joanna’s husband lies through his teeth when asked about the whereabouts of his wife. Why?

Meanwhile Jackson Brodie takes the wrong train and almost dies in a train crash near Edinburgh. Reggie saves his life and then asks him for help. The chance connects Jackson Brodie and Louise Monroe again and the result is a huge relationship tension – it seems both jumped into separate marriages in haste (after they thought the other had chosen someone else) and now question the path they are on especially after their chance encounter.

What I liked:

The prose of Ms Atkinson is plain-spoken, colorful, funny and intelligent even if not at her best here.

Louise, a strong and interesting addition in One Good Turn really comes into her own here, as a likeable although rather pragmatic, introspective, and cynical individual. She and Jackson Brodie are both solid likeable characters even if generally rather unlucky and unhappy. Also Joanna Hunter, a former victim who could overcome her weakness and defend her child was a formidable creation.

Atkinson gets you into their minds as to what they are thinking and feeling with deep character insights and reflections on life, death, sorrow, regrets and losses. I could relate to them no problem.

What I didn’t like:

I enjoyed Atkinson's prior novels (Case Histories and One Good Turn) and looked forward to her new work. Unfortunately I was disappointed. To tell you the truth this one I consider the weakest so far. When previous books could be compared to a well-kept but intricate mazes, this one comes across as just a melee.

I felt there were too many story lines in the book; some of them managed to converge elegantly while others were underdeveloped and thinly closed out. They also involved far too many coincidences – especially Jackson’s story line was a bit overdone in my humble opinion. All things which happened to him – a second marriage, an bad accident, a search for the missing doctor and her child when he is hardly fit to walk around and drive, meeting with Louise again, losing his identity, losing his wife, losing his money– would have killed off any average person even with military training. As if the author was too afraid to grant him a breather or two. Also Reggie, a teen girl with so many sad experiences she should be at least sixty, and a horrible brother to boot, seemed hardly believable, even less so when she finally got lucky at the end. When you come to think of it almost all characters are written as if they suffer from ADHD – they hardly sleep, they hardly eat, they never relax or rest properly…

Last but not least: I waited in vain for a scene in which Louise and Jackson would finally understand and admit to each other that they cannot be happy living apart. A slow, lovely scene. Their shillyshallying seemed a bit artificial and certainly too prolonged. Perhaps the author wanted to reserve these scenes for the next book but I didn’t enjoy such a move.

The final verdict:

The book was still better than any ordinary crime/suspense story but the author had raised the standards so high previously that now somehow she failed to meet them. Pity.