|
Post by Dr Strange on Oct 7, 2018 11:58:44 GMT
A friend identified the print as by Bernard Zuber, and it bears the title "Satan presiding at the Sabbat, attended by Demons in animal form" (or something similar to that). Apparently it's from a French book with the title La Vie Exécrable de Guillemette Babin, Sorcière by Maurice Garcon, first published in 1926 and later filmed as Le Destin Exécrable de Guillemette Babin in 1948. The image seems to draw heavily on Eliphas Levi's Baphomet, which would make sense given the French connection. Seems the film was considered quite raunchy at the time (some semi-naked witches dancing at a sabbat, I think). Garcon seems an interesting character - a famous lawyer in France, he successfully defended a publisher who brought out works by de Sade that were banned in France at the time (just before the start of WW2), and he also wrote novels and histories (including histories of witchcraft and Satanism). He was also described by Montague Summers as being "a high authority upon contemporary black magic and witchcraft" in his books.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Oct 8, 2018 12:51:57 GMT
Sorry for the delay. I was cut off. It is as Helrunar says "Satan Presides at the Sabbat Attended by Demons in Human or Animal Shapes" by Bernard Zuber, the first image that appeared when I Googled "Woodcut of Satan". While it's an engraving or an etching rather than a woodcut, it is appropriate to M.R. James. Satan, as Lord of the Flies, makes a personal appearance in "The Residence at Whitminister": "If I was to describe my experience exactly, I should say this: there was a dry, light, rustling sound all over the room as I went in, and then (you remember it was perfectly dark) something seemed to rush at me, and there was — I don’t know how to put it — a sensation of long thin arms, or legs, or feelers, all about my face, and neck, and body. Very little strength in them, there seemed to be, but Spearman, I don’t think I was ever more horrified or disgusted in all my life, that I remember: and it does take something to put me out. I roared out as loud as I could, and flung away my candle at random, and, knowing I was near the window, I tore at the curtain and somehow let in enough light to be able to see something waving which I knew was an insect’s leg, by the shape of it: but, Lord, what a size! Why the beast must have been as tall as I am. And now you tell me sawflies are an inch long or less. What do you make of it, Spearman?"
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Apr 14, 2021 9:50:24 GMT
Downright lies? Is Haining's M.R. James – Book of the Supernatural really that bad? I always thought it was just inadequate with much irrelevant filler material. As he was aware of Ghosts & Scholars, he could have written something about MRJ's influence on other writers. Clive Ward's "The Pictorial M.R. James" in All Hallows 15 (1997) included a number of old illustrations that a researcher like Haining should have used. I'd start with his completely false (and incidentally damaging) claims about "The Vampire of Kring", but that's been much discussed already, including here. My grumpy annotations start on page 10, where Haining (I'm assuming he wrote or at lease checked the picture captions) claims that "Rats" was inspired by the House in the Clouds at Thorpeness and that a bench end at Hadleigh is actually at Livermere. On page 59 he claims that MRJ "who rarely went to the cinema" did see Lugosi's Dracula and was "impressed by its atmospheric qualities". That's entirely invented (or, in other words, a lie!) - there's no evidence he saw that film at all. On page 93, we're told that "Ghost photographs fascinated M.R. James and readers of his books sent him a number during his lifetime". Only the amusing supposed photo of the ghost of Luxmoore at Eton "fascinated" MRJ. He's not known to have had any other interest in the subject and if readers sent him some, it's not on record as far as I'm aware. On page 94, Haining says that Elliott O'Donnell sent MRJ the photo of a phantom monk in a house in Bristol. I know of no record that O'Donnell was ever in contact with MRJ, let alone sent him photos. (It's possible, but I very much doubt whether Haining did the necessary research to find out.) Finally (there is much more and I've been quite selective, as I think Vault denizens might be losing the will to live by now!) Haining claims that he was responsible for returning "A Vignette" and "The Experiment" to print after they had been "unobtainable for many years". Hugh Lamb and Richard Dalby might have something to say about that. Oh, and on a personal note Haining used those drawings from G&S without the artists' permission and then tried to blame me. One at least of them was (rightly) not best pleased. Rosemary, As on p.82 of M.R. James: An Informal Portrait Michael Cox confirms that M.R. James did see films, "the worst sort of" which he enlivened with a running comment, is there any record of his comments on any film in his unpublished correspondence etc?
|
|
|
Post by ropardoe on Apr 14, 2021 17:36:32 GMT
Rosemary, As on p.82 of M.R. James: An Informal Portrait Michael Cox confirms that M.R. James did see films, "the worst sort of" which he enlivened with a running comment, is there any record of his comments on any film in his unpublished correspondence etc? Not that I know of.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Apr 15, 2021 12:54:40 GMT
Rosemary, As on p.82 of M.R. James: An Informal Portrait Michael Cox confirms that M.R. James did see films, "the worst sort of" which he enlivened with a running comment, is there any record of his comments on any film in his unpublished correspondence etc? Not that I know of. Oh. That's that. Last night I read the original reference to films in Samuel Lubbock's short but excellent Memoir of MRJ, so we do know that he went to the cinema. Incidentally, Lubbock says more about MRJ as a person than Michael Cox does in his full-length biography.
|
|
|
Post by ropardoe on Apr 16, 2021 11:41:31 GMT
Oh. That's that. Last night I read the original reference to films in Samuel Lubbock's short but excellent Memoir of MRJ, so we do know that he went to the cinema. Incidentally, Lubbock says more about MRJ as a person than Michael Cox does in his full-length biography. Yes, we do know that MRJ went to the cinema, but sadly so far we have no knowledge of which films he saw or liked (despite what Haining claims, but then, of course, he did no proper research anyway, so what would he know?). I wouldn’t go quite so far as you on Lubbock. Cox is still the best source, I think, though Lubbock is affectionate and a good read.
|
|