Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 08:23 pm |        |
Dear Tris,
I try to stay away from chatrooms...loose talk costs lives!:-)
Yose R Ram? |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 09:53 pm | |
Dear Tris,
There is some question about whether Obeix broke
off the Sphinx's nose. I seem to recall seeing
Woody Woodpecker do it in a cartoon shown on
television in the early 1960s.
Jeff |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 25 March 2001 - 12:20 pm | |
C:\WINDOWS\DESKTOP\My Briefcase
 sphinx07.jpg |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 25 March 2001 - 12:23 pm | |
Edit....(something really screwy going on with these 'uploads')
:-( |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 25 March 2001 - 12:27 pm | |
The above pic was part of a poste including the text here below.....
========================
"The illustrator of George Sandys' Relations of a Journey began in 1610 made a much better job of depicting the Sphinx. Sandys noted that 'Pliny gave it a belly' though only its head was visible to him, and he must have made a pretty detailed sketch of it in the field, for the woodcut in his hook(sp) is really remarkably apt in showing the erosion of the neck, with knobbly protuberances, and the damage to the head-dress, with grooves and notches. What is more, this illustration of Sandys' book largely avoids the cultural contamination with the classical style that spoils many of the renditions of Egyptian art made before the end of the eighteenth century."
The earliest known portrayal of a noseless Sphinx, about 1610.
http://www.uk.sis.gov.eg/sphinx/html/sphnx002.htm
|
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 03 July 2001 - 12:28 am | |
Grailfinder-- According to that mad Russian Oupensky ['A New Model of the Universe'] the Sphinx at Giza is one of the 'results' of the higher mind...one of the few symbols of man's transcendency. [Whatever the %*&%# that is, I don't pretend to know]. Yet its nose has been removed...(By whomever...surely a barbaric act) and now it is, to botch Keats, 'a mingling of Egyptian grandeur and the rude vandalism of Old time...' Yet, nose removal has a very long and enigmatic history, far pre-dating even the Sphinx. As was pointed out above, literally thousands of statues and figures have been unearthed thus mutilated. In European folklore, the nose has been a target for abuse. In 'Jack the Giant Killer', for instance, Jack climbs up to the clouds in order to lop off the giant's nose. A sort of ultimate humiliation. In one of the first masterpieces of what I would consider modern literature, Gogol's short story "The Nose", the protagonist wakes to find --to his horror-- that his nose has disappeared. Several cultures have gestures that signifies 'cutting off the nose' as a type of abuse; I suspect 'thumbing one's nose' comes from the same source. Pirates were known to have mutilated their victims by cutting off their ears & noses (at least in Howard Pyle & in popular literature) and in the 18th Century it is said that those suffering from venereal diseases sometimes had 'tin noses'.
Eddowes & Kelly. I don't know what it means. There is the Ripper suspect that is never mentioned, Dick Austen, who had the end of his own nose bit off. But what it means--if anything--who nose? [I mean knows!] Heaven knows! |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 03 July 2001 - 02:04 pm | |
| RJ , have you seen the movie ' Chinatown ' ? What happens to Jack Nicholson's nose is painful to watch ! |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Tuesday, 03 July 2001 - 10:25 pm | |
I don't know if it helps, but the use of the nose
as a symbol, especially when it is cut off, is
frequently considered a substitute for a penis,
and the cutting is an emasculation of the man
who loses the nose.
But then how to interpret the nursery rhyme,
where "the maid was in the garden, hanging up
the clothes. Along came a blackbird, who snipped
off her nose. Along came a jenny wren, who put
it back again!"
Jeff |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 04 July 2001 - 02:03 am | |
Jeff--Thanks for the above. Jenny Wren, a good edition to my insane ramble about noses. But as for those strange marks on Eddowes, they do strike me as a bit theatrical. Giving it some thought, maybe Jon's suggestion is right, that they are nothing more than a red herring. It's at least as good as any other suggestion I've heard...
Simon--[If my memory serves me right, that was Roman Polanski that slit Jack's nose]. RJP |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Wednesday, 04 July 2001 - 03:05 pm | |
It was Roman Polanski who slit Jack's nose (because he was too nosey regarding his investigation). Polanski also directed the film.
He was excellent in his directing, and pretty good
as a sadistic thug.
There is a similar question about marks on the
face of a murder victim from a case that occured
two decades after Whitechapel. In 1911 a man
named Leon Beron was robbed and murdered at
Clapham Junction. Another man, Stinie Morrison,
was given a trial, which was not very satisfactory on all sides, and found guilty, but
his sentence was reduced to life imprisonment
(Morrison, a violent criminal, starved himself to
death in 1921). When Beron's corpse was found,
there were slash marks on his face, that some
insist (even today) were an "S" for "spic" the
Russian or Yiddish word for "spy". The time
proximity of Beron's death with the Tottenham
Road Outrage, the murder of three constables in
Houndsditch by Russian Anarchist, and the Siege
of Sidney Street, suggested to some that Beron
was murdered as a police spy on the anarchist.
There is no real evidence for this. For an
account of these events, and a review of the theory about Beron and the anarchists, see
Donald Rumbelow's THE HOUNDSDITCH MURDERS (called
THE SIEGE OF SIDNEY STREET in the U.S.).
Jeff |
Author: Grailfinder
Tuesday, 10 July 2001 - 09:11 pm | |
HI RJ
Sorry it has taken me a while to reply to your post, I don't get the time just lately to participate in the coming and goings of the boards but as you addressed your post to me I decided to reply.
Not that I have anything to add that has not already been said by others on the subject of noses or rather, the lack of them.
My original post regarding the sphinx was a reply to some other topic that slips my mind at the moment, but please feel free to shoot me down as the post is not part of any theory of mine, it was just an observation that popped into my mind whilst reading at the time. I don't really have a theory about the Ripper and after 25 years of reading of his exploits I am glad to say my mind is still open to all (nearly all) theories.
I agree that the defacing of statues over the centuries has an ritual meaning but I also think that any object that is more than a few thousand years old is bound to suffer from some damage either by vandalism or accident and that any protuberances (is that spelt correct?) such as the nose and ears will be the most likely parts to break off.
Whether or not the Sphinx was defaced by Napoleon or somebody else? your guess is as good as mine.
Cheers for now, GF |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 10 July 2001 - 09:29 pm | |
Dear Grailfinder,
There is not much that slips your mind...I am surprised!
Rosey :-) |
Author: Grailfinder
Tuesday, 10 July 2001 - 09:51 pm | |
Dear Rosey
There is not much that slips your notice...I am not surprised!
Thanks for the complement...love 'n' hugs GF |
