Author: Ann Glaister
Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 12:59 pm |        |
On reading Stephen Knight and Melvyn Faircloughs Books, I feel I must jump to the
defence of Mr William Hogarth and his Etchings 'The four Stages of cruelty' February
1751
Messers Knight and Fairclough state that the fourth plate in the series entitled
The reward of Cruelty' is a depiction of a ritualistic Masonic Killing. -sorry!- can't let
you get away with that!
It was infact Henry Fielding who urged Hogarth to use his talents in a specific
campaign against the horrors of crime and drink. Much of which he had observed as a
magistrate at Bow Street, Covent garden.
The Series of four etchings follows the plight of Tom Nero as he descends from
tormenting animals to Murdering his Mistress, as an angry mob lead Tom away we see
the corpse of the unfortunate woman with her throat and wrists cut . a letter from her
reveals her name to be Ann Gull!
Tom Neros horrible end comes in the anatomy lesson of The President of the Company
of Royal Physicians. Tom is shown freshly cut from the gallows hence the rope around
his neck. FOUR surgeons attend him Surgeon number one is cutting out his eyes, whilst
surgeon number two disembowels him with a sharp knife. Surgeon Number three is
about to make an incision into his foot with a scalpel while surgeon number four pulls the
intestines from the abdominal cavity and into a slop bucket. The Dog that Tom was so
terrible cruel to in the first plate is seen eating his heart.
The suggestion in the etching is that Tom feels the pain of the knife and this may refer
to the commonest fears of the criminal that he might not be completely dead when cut
from the gibbet and that he would be snatched away by surgeons and not buried in
peace.
There is no doubt that the etching does not depict a Masonic ritualistic killing. William
Hogarth was a moralist. If indeed he was a Mason and wanted to depict a Masonic
ritualistic killing then why get it all so wrong? There are four surgeons not three. There
is a rope around the victims neck it has not been severed. Most importantly of all the
victim is not supposed to be dead.! therefore, How can you have a ritualistic Killing if
your victim is alive ?
No doubt in the future someone will suggest that Hogarths etchings were the
inspiration for The Whitechapel Murders....keep me posted! |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 08 March 2000 - 07:22 am | |
| No question you are right , but could something like this have been used as inspiration for the Ripper murders ? Oops...sorry. |
Author: David Anderson
Friday, 23 June 2000 - 05:50 pm | |
| It is entirely co-incidental of course but William Hogarth lived, worked, and died, and is buried in Chiswick. Druitts body was brought ashore at the old ferry jetty alongside the churchyard of St. Nicholas' church wherein lie the remains of Hogarth. Incidentally for trivia fans and for those interested in D'Onston/Stephenson Garibaldi also visited this churchyard to pay his respects at the tomb of Ugo Foscolo,who actually did fight alongside Garibaldi. |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Saturday, 24 June 2000 - 08:16 am | |
G'day Guys,
Druitt was trying out for the '2000 Olympic Games', and he tried swimming across the Thames, with a pocket full of rocks! Unfortunately, his attempt was unsuccessful and he ended up being fish-bait! Hope this helps!
Jules |
Author: David M. Radka
Saturday, 24 June 2000 - 11:42 am | |
David,
Are you the David Anderson I knew at Newington High School in the 1970s?
David |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 24 June 2000 - 02:53 pm | |
| Has anyone taken a look at the THIRD stage of cruelty yet ? |
Author: Jon Smyth
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 12:16 pm | |
David R.
I think David Anderson was out of highschool in the 70's :-)
.....he was Daniel Farson's researcher for his 1972, 'Jack the Ripper' book.
Jon |
Author: Sarah R. Jacobs
Thursday, 16 November 2000 - 10:56 am | |
Do you suppose "Ann Gull" = "Angel"?
Sarah |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 16 November 2000 - 04:32 pm | |
I doubt it, Sarah.
(i) The 18th century view (expressed by Johnson, if I remember aright) was that 'The man who would make a pun would pick a pocket'.
(ii) The name is much more likely to indicate that she has been gulled - tricked - by Tom.
Hogarth goes in for mocking surnames suggesting blatantly obvious characteristics: Tom NERO for this series on cruelty; Moll HACKABOUT for The Harlot's Progress.
The sheer irrelevancy of the misappropriated Hogarth plate, the total absence of a single piece of evidence or valid argument connecting anything whatsoever about the Ripper with anything whatsoever about the Freemasons, combined with the quantity of internal self-contradiction, all served to convince me when I first read Knight that his 'theory' was complete tosh. This was years before I had done any work on the Ripper myself, and I was ignorant enough to assume that Joe Sickert was (a) Joe Sickert and (b) an honest source! But I had as an interested amateur read all the previous Ripper books, and I was and am impressed with the actual work on reality Knight did: most notably putting Schwartz firmly into the public domain.
(Goodness, I sound severe!)
Martin Fido |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 17 November 2000 - 02:34 pm | |
Hi, Martin:
I note your statement that in earlier years you were "ignorant enough to assume that Joe Sickert was . . . Joe Sickert." I know that there was doubt that Joseph Sickert is painter Walter Sickert's son, and that some have thought that in broadcasting his knowledge of the painter's alleged involvement in the Ripper murders, Joe was trying to prove his paternity. Has it ever been proven that Joe Sickert IS Walter Sickert's son?
Thanks
Chris George |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 18 November 2000 - 02:02 am | |
No, Chris. Every expert on Walter Sickert disbelieves Joe's claim. Sickert family say they wouldn't put anything past the old boy thrty years earlier, but by the time Joe was born he'd settled down. I don't think anyone who has looked into it seriously has ever doubted that Joe Sickert is the legitimate son of Billy Gorman, just as his birth certificate says. It was obviously advantageous to Joe to try and latch on to the best known name in painting in his district, where he himself set up as a picture restorer and dealer. He was so well known to Sickert experts as a phoney that when one of them first heard the rumour that Walter Sickert had more Ripper connection than had previously been known, she started investigating, only to see to her disgust that Joe was in the middle of the story - proof enough for her that it was a pack of lies.
Martin Fido |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 18 November 2000 - 06:47 am | |
Hi, Martin:
Thanks for your response. It is a pity that more people with an interest in the case have not proved likewise leery of Joe Sickert instead of swallowing his assertions whole.
Chris |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 19 November 2000 - 05:00 pm | |
| Do u mean me ? You surely do ! |
