An exceptional event in American history is easily recognizable when only the calendar date is required in order to allude to the event itself. For example, when one remarks “July fourth”, America’s Declaration of Independence from England in 1776 is anticipated to be associated with the comment.

Likewise, whenever an American now uses the phrase “January sixth”, it is a near certainty that the reference is to the date of 6 January 2021, when what many describe even today as an “attempted insurrection” took place at the Capitol Building of Washington D.C. According to ABC News, as of 5 January 2024, “more than 1,265 defendants” were charged and “more than 460 people” had been sentenced to incarceration (https://abcnews.com/Politics/3-years-jan-6-numbers-100-charged-460/story?id=106140326 ). The vast majority of those incarcerated were classified as trespassers upon the Capitol grounds, which in typical circumstances would have been treated as a misdemeanor. However, the ABC News report also states that those convicted include “213 who pleaded to felonies that include assaults on federal officers, obstructing law enforcement and seditious conspiracy”.

One of the most striking episodes of 6 January 2021 was the apparent attack on Capitol Police Officer Daniel Hodges. (From https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/20/connecticut-man-arrested-for-crushin.html , with emphasis added):

“A Connecticut man has been arrested on charges that he assaulted a Washington police officer, whom he pinned between two doors, during the Jan. 6 riot by Trump supporters at the U.S. Capitol.

Patrick Edward McCaughey III, 23, of Ridgefield, repeatedly told Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges “just go home” and “come on man, you are going to get squished” as he pinned Hodges between a police riot shield that McCaughey was holding and the doors, a criminal complaint said.

As McCaughey did so, another rioter “began violently ripping off Officer Hodges’ gas mask, exposing Officer Hodges bloodied mouth,” said the complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

“Don’t try and use that stick on me boy,” McCaughey snapped at Hodges, referring to a police riot baton.

[..]

Hodges later told reporters about his effort to hold back the mob: “If it wasn’t my job, I would have done that for free.”

“It was absolutely my pleasure to crush a white nationalist insurrection, and we’ll do it as many times as it takes,” Hodges said.

McCaughey was arrested Tuesday evening by FBI agents at his father’s second home in South Salem, New York, not far from his hometown, after someone phoned in a tip about him.”

Another account also specified the location of the arrest of Patrick Edward McCaughey III as South Salem, New York.

The act of assaulting a police officer is so appalling to virtually all Americans that Officer Daniel Hodges was invited as a special guest to Super Bowl LV, and was interviewed during the broadcast. (From https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/how-many-people-are-at-super-bowl-capitol-riot-police-officers-brian-sicknicks-family/65-d15a375c-d00e-4199-94a8-a03717cea67c ):

“Capitol riot police officers, Brian Sicknick’s family guests at Super Bowl LV

DC Police officers and the family of slain Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick were at Super Bowl LV as guests of the NFL.

Author: Nick Boykin (WUSA9), February 8, 2021

TAMPA, Fla. — DC Police officers who helped protect the U.S. Capitol during January 6th’s riots and the family of slain Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick were at Super Bowl LV on Sunday in Tampa as guests of the National Football League.

Mike Fanone, Daniel Hodges and Lila Morris were in attendance.

Sicknick was killed at the Capitol riot on Jan. 6 after he was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during the attack. He had made it back from the riot to his department’s headquarters when he had a seizure in front of his fellow officers, later dying at the hospital.

Officer Daniel Hodges was crushed in the doorway of the U.S. Capitol by rioters during the attack. He has recovered from his injuries. ”

A coroner report issued three months later clarified that Officer Sicknick’s death at the age of 42 was due to “natural causes” rather than due to injuries sustained on January 6, 2021. (Per NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/capitol-police-officer-brian-sicknick-dies-of-natural-causes-after-riot-n1264562 )

“April 21, 2022 by Pete Williams:

Washington’s chief medical examiner has determined that US Capitol Police Officer Brain Sicknick died of natural causes the day after the riot on Jan. 6 after he suffered two strokes. The autopsy revealed that Sicknick, 42, said the strokes at the base of the brain stem were caused by a blood clot, Chief Medical Examiner Francisco Diaz said. The formal finding was that the death was caused by ‘acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis’ and that the manner of death was ‘natural’. [..]

He also said there was no evidence of either external or internal injuries.”

Given that the rioters did not cause Officer Sicknick’s death, the apparent assault on Officer Daniel Hodges by Patrick Edward McCaughey III may be viewed as the very highest profile act of violence committed by any protestor (or rioter, if one prefers) against a police officer on 6 January 2021.

More than a year later, the case of Patrick Edward McCaughey III was heard in court, as documented by NBC News ( https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department-/dc-officer-daniel-hodges-testifies-capitol-rioter-crushed-shield-rcna45533 ):

“Aug 30, 2022 by Gary Grumbach and Ryan J. Reilly

A Washington D.C. police officer who was crushed by a pro-Trump mob in a tunnel leading to the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, testified Tuesday against one of the rioters charged with assaulting him.

Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges, who has spoken publicly about being attacked at the Capitol, including before the Jan. 6 committee, appeared in court Tuesday for the trial of three Capitol defendants: Partick McCaughey III, Tristan Stevens and David Mehaffie.

McCaughey, the Justice Department alleged, ‘threw his body weight’ against Hodges and pressed a stolen police shield against him. Citing a video that went viral after the Jan. 6 attack, federal prosecutors wrote in a trial brief that Hodges was ‘screaming out in pain, crushed between the shield held by the defendant McCaughey and the door frame of the Capitol.

Hodges, who has said in media appearances that Donald Trump has a ‘cultlike’ control over his supporter, told the court that the attack ‘hurt a great deal’ and that McCaughey’s actions contributed to his injuries that day.

‘It, combined with everything else that was going on, made it difficult to breathe,’ Hodges said. ‘Being crushed by the shield and the people behind it… leaving me defenseless, injured.’

‘There is no good way to fight back against it,’ he testified. ‘You have to endure the pressure that it creates.’

Hodges testified that he had ‘never been in the United States Capitol building before’ Jan. 6 and that his radio was stolen and he was separated from his platoon.

‘I didn’t know where I was going. I didn’t know whether there was an avenue of egress for us to take. I was worried that we would be put up against the wall literally and figuratively,” he testified.

[..]

McCaughey, Hodges testified, was among the Jan. 6 rioters who were trying to get police officers to stand down during the attack.

‘He was trying to get us to surrender, to join them,’ Hodges said.”

Court documents from the prosecution included many of the sae images reported in the media.

Patrick Edward McCaughey III was subsequently convicted.

Leading up to the trial, several court documents lay out the events from the perspective of Patrick Edward McCaughey III. Public court documents (at https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/20474982/2-8-21-patrick-mccaughey-bond-motion-redacted.pdf ) from 8 February 2021 from his defense attorney provide a story of the events from the viewpoint of Patrick Edward McCaughey III as follows:

“The defendant travelled to Washington D.C., with his father, in order to exercise his Constitutional right to express his support for then-President Trump and to implore his Representatives in Congress to investigate the many outstanding allegations of election fraud before they voted to certify the electors for President Biden.

[..]

Ms. Ulrike Fein-McCaughey, the defendant’s mother and the person with whom the defendant was residing at the time of his arrest, is prepared to act as Mr. McCaughey’s 3rd Party Custodian and to sign an unsecured bond as a surety for $250,000.00.

The document adds an unusual explanatory footnote.

Due to an error when the defendant’s mother registered the defendant with state authorities at birth, the defendant was given the same identical name as his father, instead of being properly named Patrick Edward McCaughey the IV.”

In August 2021, a court document, prepared by the Government and outlining opposition to the then-defendant’s motion to be released on bond, further reinforced the close familial relationship between the defendant and his mother and father.

https://americangulag.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/11-RESPONSE-by-USA-as-to-PATRICK-EDWARD-MCCAUGHEY-III.pdf

“Defendants’ History and Characteristics: The government recognizes that the defendant does not have any adult convictions, and is only 23 years old. He has recently lived with his mother in Connecticut, and also has strong ties to his father and his father’s residence in New York. As such, the defendant moves the court to release him on a real estate bond secured by his father, as well as an unsecured bond signed by his mother. The United States contends that this is not sufficient to protect the community and to ensure the defendant’s future appearance in court.

With respect to the real estate bond pledged by the defendant’s father, also named Patrick McCaughey III, the government’s evidence suggests that the defendant traveled to Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021, with the assistance and approval of his father. Nonetheless, the defendant’s conduct was not constrained by the presence of his father that day. This strongly suggests that any parental pressure that McCaughey’s father may exert to compel the defendant to conform his behavior to court orders will carry little weight in the defendant’s decision-making process.”

Generally speaking, names with a fourth generation of lineage are usually associated with wealth and privilege in the United States, which is counter to the stereotype of January 6 protestors. In a similar vein, the father of the defendant also travelled to Washington DC, and he apparently owned a second home in South Salem, NY – a wealthy small town with a population of about 7,000 residents and less than 60 miles from Manhattan, as the crow flies. South Salem, NY also happens to be the location of the home and office of the late Stanley Pottinger. (fig.) (per the New York Times upon the occasion of his death in 2024, https://web.archive.org/web/20241130014044/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/29/us/politics/j-stanley-pottinger-dead.html ):

“J. Stanley Pottinger, who as a high-ranking figure in the Department of Justice during the 1970s was probably the only person in government to figure out the identity of Deep Throat, the pseudonymous man who provided critical information to reporters in the Watergate scandal, died on Wednesday in Princeton, N.J. He was 84.

His son Matt said the death, at a hospital, was from cancer. Mr. Pottinger, who went on to become a best-selling novelist, lived in South Salem, NY….”

The former location of Stanley Pottinger’s office may be independently verified at https://opengovny.com/attorney/1892132 :

“J STANLEY POTTINGER (Registration #1892132) is an attorney in admitted in New York State in 1983, registered with the Office of Court Administration (OCA) of New York State Unified Court System. The attorney was graduated from HARVARD. The registered office location is at:

EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 49 Twin Lakes Rd, Suite 100, South Salem, NY 10590-1012 2026

THE POTTINGER FIRM PLLC 49 Twin Lakes Rd, South Salem, NY 2020 )

The current status of the attorney is Deceased.”

[For more information on Stanley Pottinger, one might consult the work of Johnny Vedmore (including a recent article at https://covertactionmagazine.com/2026/09/25/what-did-epsteins-victims-lawyer-do-during-iran-contra/ ).]

The name of the defendant’s mother, Ulrike Fein-McCaughey, is unique, at least in the US. The website “ZoomInfo” (

https://www.zoominfo.com/p/Ulrike-Fein/-876341914

) lists Ulrike Fein-McCaughey working as a manager and, surprisingly perhaps, that she attained a Bachelor of Arts at the University of California-Berkeley.

California-Berkeley is NOT generally associated with the family of avid Trump supporters who protested in Washington DC on 6 January 2021.

As for the then-defendant’s father, one publicly accessible site shows a “Patrick Edward McCaughey (present age 64) from New Canaan, CT as a manager at Yale University”. (at https://www.mylife.com/patrick-mccaughey/e519130993230 ). Given the list of associates (see figure), one is led to conclude that the individual listed is the father of the then-defendant, assuming the website is correct.

It struck me odd that the media apparently showed no interest whatsoever in the fact that easily accessible online information sources showed that (arguably) the single most heinous act of violence against a police officer at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 was committed by the son of a couple linked to Yale and Cal-Berkeley. Moreover, the father- a manager at Yale, according to “myLife.com”- even accompanied his son to Washington DC for the protest.

This surprising association between Patrick McCaughey III (the father, not the son of the exact same name) and Yale led me to perform a web-based search on the name and school. Interestingly, one of the results was a link to a story from two decades earlier about an entirely different man named Patrick McCaughey, who once served as the Director of the Yale Center for British Art.

Gallery B

The story (at https://yaledailynews.com/articles/british-art-center-head-to-leave-position ) reads as follows:

“By Chris Rovzar, March 18, 2001

After five years at the helm of the second-largest museum of British art in the world, Yale Center for British Art Director Patrick McCaughey is stepping down from his post.

McCaughey announced March 9 that he will leave his position when his contract runs out in June.

[..]

Members of the Yale and New Haven art communities were startled by the news of McCaughey’s departure and said that they were sad to see such an effective director go.

[..]

“Before arriving at Yale, McCaughey had garnered national attention for adopting a controversial Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit for his previous museum, the Hartford Wadsworth Atheneum. The artwork caused an uproar and was banned by officials in its original show in Cincinnati. McCaughey immediately brought the pieces to Connecticut, a move that quickly put the Atheneum on the map. When he took up the reigns of his new post at the British Art Center, he brought that same energy and daring along with him.

[..]

“As well as outreach, McCaughey’s work inside the building will leave its mark when he leaves. During his term, the center underwent an ambitious renovation, which improved the building’s structure and altered the layout of exhibit space.

‘He oversaw the renovation of the building because the roof needed repair,’ Levin said. ‘He shut the museum for nine months, during which time the staff carried out needed repairs. He and curatorial staff also did a brilliant reinstallation of the Paul Mellon collection.’

McCaughey was not available Sunday for comment.”

The Mapplethorpe exhibit was controversial due to its content and the funding it received from the US federal government via the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). (From https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/helms-claims-photographs-are-indecent ):

“In early 1989, the Reverend Donald Wildmon, head of the conservative American Family Association headquartered in Tupelo, Mississippi, began a campaign against Piss Christ, a photograph by artist Andres Serrano depicting a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine. Wildmon called the work an example of ‘anti-Christian bigotry.’ Critics were particularly incensed that Serrano had received $15,000 in indirect funding from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), a federal government agency founded in 1965 by President Lyndon B. Johnson “to create and sustain…a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry.”

The furor over Piss Christ soon expanded to include works with homoerotic content and those deemed anti-American. Among the critics’ main targets was a retrospective exhibition of the work of gay photographer Robert Mapplethorpe, who died of complications from AIDS in March, 1989. Titled The Perfect Moment, the exhibit was [..] funded in part with $30,000 from the NEA. The show included a representative sample of Mapplethorpe’s fine-art photography, much of which featured flowers, classical nudes, and portraits of celebrities. Among the selections, however, were candid photos of young children with their genitals exposed, as well as the X Portfolio, a collection of several images showing gay male sadomasochism, including one of the artist with a bullwhip protruding from his anus.

[..]

(US Senators) Jesse Helms, Alfonse D’Amato and more than two dozen other senators sent a letter of outrage to outgoing NEA chairman Hugh Southern. More than one hundred members of the House of Representatives [..] soon followed suit, demanding that the NEA end its sponsorship of “morally reprehensible trash” and requesting new grant guidelines that would “pay respect to public standards of taste and decency. ”

While serving as the museum director, Patrick McCaughey also contributed to a book with an auspicious publication date, Great British Paintings from American Collections: From Holbein to Hockney -Edited by Malcolm Warner and Robyn Asleson

With contributions by Julia Marciari Alexander, Brian Allen, and Patrick McCaughey

Published by the Yale Center for British Art

262 pages, 1.1 x 0.9 x 0.1 inches, 122 illustrations, paperback, ISBN 0300092229

Publication date: September 10, 2001

This record of the publication can be found at https://britishart.yale.edu/publications/great-british-paintings-american-collections-holbein-hockney (also archived at https://archive.is/arW64 ).

This text includes a discussion of collector Paul Mellon’s sentiments (on pages 13-14), as follows:

“For Paul Mellon, the outstanding American collector of British landscape paintings, the pleasures of the landscape were inseparable from the pleasures of sport; his favorite artist was George Stubbs in whose work the green fields of England appear so often as an idyllic setting for horseracing, hunting, or shooting. He collected in a spirit of nostalgia that was both historical and personal: through British art, he looked back longingly to pre-industrial Britain, and at the same time to the happiest moments of his own childhood. In both these respects his Anglophilia and his collection were a reaction against his early home in industrial Pittsburgh, where his father created the Mellon fortune. He wrote in his autobiography of the ‘hellish quality of smoky old Pittsburgh with its mills belching fire (shades of William Blake’s dark satanic mills)’. The young Paul Mellon escaped Pittsburgh almost every summer for a holiday in England-his mother was English-and this was the brightest moment of his year. Later, with his knowledge of the English poets and admiration for Blake in particular, he came to see England as Innocence to Pittsburgh’s Experience, a green and pleasant band to set against those dark, satanic mills.”

Paul Mellon’s father, Andrew W. Mellon, served in the cabinet of President Warren G. Harding. In the book The Ohio Gang by (or attributed to) Charles L. Mee, Jr., (pp. 124-25) Andrew W. Mellon is portrayed unfavorably. For example:

“Mr. Mellon looks as if he didn’t know what fun was, and I don’t believe he does… When he shakes hands, he gives you only the tips of his fingers. At the level of a man such as Mellon, graft is elevated beyond common recognition, transmuted and dignified to the status of policy.”

Before drawing conclusions, one might wish to refer to “Learn to Decode, Part 4…” as Charles L. Mee describes President Harding as a youth in… unflattering terms, to say the least (https://thewayout.substack.com/learn-to-decode-part-4-following ).

Clearly, Mee derides Andrew W. Mellon (art collector Paul Mellon’s father), but then Mee follows with a passage which the observant reader might find useful in illuminating an underlying motivation.

“In Mellon’s view, the slumping American economy needed protection from foreign competition so that it could get back on its feet, regain its vigor, and then go back into the world. What was required was a tariff wall that would protect American farms and factories. Mellon’s policy found its expression in the Fordney-McCumber Act of 1922, which established the highest tariff rates in American history.”

Returning to the subject of Patrick McCaughey, the one-time Yale Art Museum Director, he spent most of his childhood and adult life livign in Australia. His background includes a famous episode from 1986 involving a “stolen Picasso painting” whenhe served as the museum director for the National Gallery of Victoria, located in Melbourne, Australia (via https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-14/retrofocus-picacsso-weeping-woman-famous-unsolved-art-heist/11498936 ):

“A Picasso painting was stolen from a Melbourne gallery — and we still don’t know who did it”

By Bridget Judd for RetroFocus, 19 Sep 2019

“We have stolen the Picasso from the National Gallery,” read the ransom note, addressed to Victoria’s then arts minister Race Mathews.

The year was 1986 and the Weeping Woman painting, purchased by the National Gallery of Victoria for some $1.6 million just one year prior, was nowhere to be seen.

But this was no normal theft, declared the thieves, known only as the Australian Cultural Terrorists.

This was a crime of passion — a protest against the “niggardly funding of the fine arts in this hick state and against the clumsy, unimaginative stupidity of the administration and distribution of that funding”.

Authorities had seven days to meet the thieves’ demands, the letter said, or the painting would be destroyed.

A $1.6m price tag — and no insurance

“We’d be terribly lucky if it [the exhibition of the painting] went without any brouhaha,” remarked then director of the National Gallery of Victoria, Patrick McCaughey, in what would become somewhat of a droll prediction. It was December 1985 — eight months prior to the painting’s disappearance — and Mr. McCaughey was marking the launch of the gallery’s new purchase.

The Weeping Woman, painted by Picasso in 1937 during the same period as his famed Guernica, and modelled on his mistress Dora Maar — his own “weeping woman” — was the most important 20th century work the gallery had acquired.

But with a $1.6 million price tag, it was not without controversy.

Nor was it insured, with those in power considering the cost of insurance for major works of art “prohibitive”.

“This face is going to haunt Melbourne for the next 100 years,” Mr McCaughey beamed at the launch.

Indeed, the Weeping Woman would haunt the city — but not in the way he had planned.

It was a crime so simple it was almost inconceivable.

The painting was unscrewed from the wall and carried out of the gallery unnoticed sometime after closing on Saturday August 2, 1986.

The thieves even left a calling card indicating the painting had been removed for routine maintenance, signing it with the initials ACT (Australian Cultural Terrorists).

So preposterous was the heist, it was not reported for three days.

“Confronting the bare wall and the fake label, I was aghast,” Mr. McCaughey wrote in his book, The Bright Shapes and the True Names.

“I excused myself from the committee meeting and began a search of the gallery, desperately hoping that it was a prank and that the painting had been hidden in the building.”

Authorities were at a loss. Could it be an inside job?

After all, the thieves clearly knew their art history — some suspected the heist was an ironic homage to the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, in which Picasso himself was a suspect.

[..]

That was until police and the press received an anonymous phone call almost three weeks after the artwork’s disappearance.

Go to Spencer Street railway station, the tipster said, there you will find the Weeping Woman hidden in locker 227.

“The police beckoned me to look inside and there was a brown paper package exactly the dimensions of Picasso’s [painting],” Mr McCaughey recalls in his memoir.

“We were whisked up to the forensic laboratory where the painting was unpacked and Weeping Woman emerged unharmed.”

In their final letter, delivered in the days after the find, the Australian Cultural Terrorists would concede they “never looked to have our demands met”.

The great Picasso caper had come to an anti-climactic end as the Weeping Woman found her way back on the walls of the National Gallery of Victoria.

Despite exhaustive inquiries — including raids of private galleries and a $50,000 reward — more than three decades later, authorities are no closer to uncovering the true identity of the art vigilantes.

According to police, it is likely the Australian Cultural Terrorists comprised “three and perhaps more” people who were “in the art world or on the fringe of the art world”.

Mr McCaughey has his own theories about the theft.

In his memoir, he recalls receiving a call from a Melbourne art dealer — just days before the painting was recovered — who said a young artist may have information about the theft.

He visited the artist’s studio near the Victoria Market where he discovered photos and newspaper clippings about the theft pinned to the walls.

“I said deliberately, at least twice, that the people who had taken the work could deposit it in a luggage locker at Spencer Street railway station or at Tullamarine airport,” Mr McCaughey wrote.

“I always found it notable … that within 48 hours of that visit, with the explicit advice about placing the work in a locker … the painting reappeared.

“Did the Australian Cultural Terrorists hear of this and think we might be getting close?”

At least for now, it would seem, we will never know.

Notably omitted from the story is the fact that Patrick McCaughey’s father, Davis McCaughey was the 23^rd governor of Victoria province in Australia from 18 February 1986 to 22 April 1992. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_McCaughey )

In the King James Version of the Bible (KJV), Psalm 22:7 corresponds to a prayer to God from the Psalmist who is mocked by others for remaining faithful to the Almighty in times of trouble. It reads: “All they that see me laugh me to scorn; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying…”. Take a close look at the protruding lips of the “Weeping Woman” in the painting above. Might this verse from the Bible have anything to do with the choice of locker 227?

Gallery C

As the above article mentions, the story was included in Patrick McCaughey’s book, The Bright Shapes and the True Names: A Memoir, which was published in 2003. Naturally, I was curious to learn more about the adventures of Patrick McCaughey, so I bought a copy of the book and was not disappointed.

On the very first page of the text, Patrick McCaughey abruptly says of a man named Gordon Burroughs, a friend of his father’s: “I suspect him now of being a British spy.” By doing so, McCaughey sets the stage for later revelations in his memoir. In fact, it is only a mild exaggeration to say that each page holds information of some value to readers of The Way Out substack.

For example, on page 18, Patrick McCaughey recalls as a young college student hearing a statement by Vice Admiral Sir Alan McNicoll, the father of McCaughey’s close friend Anthony McNicoll, placing it inside quotations as follows:

“Read Proust, my boy. If I had read Proust at your age, my life would have been entirely different.”

Indeed, the advice offered by Vice Admiral McNicoll precisely matches the appeal to college students (specifically those of Oxford) in the aforementioned “Learn to Decode, Part 4…” (see link above). Anthony’s mother Ruth McNicoll “ran the Argus Gallery in town and knew everybody in the art world. She was good humored and startlingly candid. It was in the McNicoll house [..] that I first saw Australian paintings.”

According to Patrick McCaughey, the McNicoll home was the location of an encounter with Brian Finemore, who at that time was the curator of Australian art at the National Gallery of Victoria. From page 88 (emphasis added):

“Brian (Finemore) liked to play the outrageous camp and he could be unpredictable socially. Once at Ruth McNicoll’s house, he turned on me and started shouting, ‘If I wasn’t in the house of a very old friend, I would belt you one… etc.’ Eventually, he was flung out into the night yelling and cursing. I was young and pretty shaken up by the experience. The next day I received an abject and handsome note of apology from Finemore but I never really trusted him after that. He had a terrible end – murdered under particularly brutal circumstances. His assailant must have been an intimate and was never caught. But in 1968, Brian Finemeore, like the National Gallery of Victoria, was much in revival…”

The page is shown below to demonstrate that the name “Finemore” happened to be “misspelled” as “Finemeore” only in its third usage, leading to the word “me” within the murder victim’s last name just after the sentence describing the assailant in the brutal murder of Brian Finemore. Naturally, “typos” sometimes occur even with the best proofreading, so one must not jump to conclusions.

On the other hand, the famous and influential 19^th Century art and literature critic John Ruskin in his work Sesame and Lilies (paragraph 15), advises:

“…I tell you earnestly and authoritatively (I know I am right in this), you must get into the habit of looking intensely at words, and assuring yourself of their meaning, syllable by syllable – nay, letter by letter. For though it is only by reason of the opposition of letters in the function of signs, to sounds in the function of signs, that the study of books is called “literature,” and that a man versed in it is called, by the consent of nations, a man of letters instead of a man of books, or of words…”

The reader might consider whether a pattern is demonstrated, as two additional examples of “typos” from The Bright Shapes and the True Names will be provided herein.

Incidentally, one detail omitted in Patrick McCaughey’s account is that, according to a recent book release ( see https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2026/06/01/330763/pantera-press-acquires-the-curator-by-jonathan-butler/ ), Brian Finemore’s murder occurred on a very auspicious day – just prior to a visit to the gallery from Princess Margaret.

“Pantera Press acquires “The Curator” by Jonathan Butler

Monday, 1 June 2026 Books+Publishing

Pantera Press has acquired world rights to “gripping true crime investigation” The Curator by Jonathan Butler.

Part murder mystery, part queer history, and part portrait of Melbourne’s art world, the book investigates the unsolved 1975 murder of Brian Finemore. The inaugural curator of Australian art at the National Gallery of Victoria, Finemore was murdered in his East Melbourne apartment hours before he was due to guide Princess Margaret through the gallery, and his killer has never been identified.

Drawing on previously unreleased archival material, personal papers and more than 25 interviews, Butler reconstructs the life and death of a charismatic, deeply influential figure who helped shape Australian art history.”

Gallery D

It is unsurprising that John Ruskin is mentioned several times in McCaughey’s memoir. One occasion (on page 60) happens to be in the context of a conversation McCaughey had with Bernard Smith while McCaughey was a student at the University of Melbourne. Bernard Smith, a teacher at the university and art critic at the Age played an important role in launching McCaughey’s career.

On page 71:

“Bernard told me he was going on six months leave in June (1966). Would I like to fill in for him as the art critic of the Age until his return? The Age along with the Sydney Morning Herald was the most prestigious paper in the country and the critics’ positions shared that prestige. I was flattered and nervous at the prospect. It was the turning point in my early adult life, transforming a listless present into a purposeful existence. Through all the vicissitudes of my relations with Bernard Smith, I have always been grateful to him for giving me the nod. It was the start of my professional career.”

Patrick McCaughey proceeded to write art reviews expressing very strong opinions, and he described the outcome as follows:

“Soon I had infuriated the National Gallery of Victoria, artists and collectors of the more conservative hue. Because I was running a critical melodrama where the good were tremendous and the bad appalling, the column found a wide readership. Then the blow fell. Bernard was appointed as the first Power professor of contemporary art at the University of Sydney and would take his new appointment immediately on his return. The Age was stuck with me.”

In fact, the Age did maintain Patrick McCaughey as its art critic, and according to McCaughey one reason is the large number of letters (most of them negative) received about his controversial columns. One might contend that this is an example of a “lucky break” combined with the motto, “all publicity is good publicity”. On the other hand, one might also consider the possibility that Patrick McCaughey was “elected” to the role we might today call “influencer” through artificial means. Is it possible that Bernard Smith knew he would be receiving a new faculty appointment before he left the art critic position at the Age to McCaughey? Is it possible that Patrick McCaughey was advised or “helped” to compose controversial columns? Is it possible that a covert (“astroturfed”) letter-writing campaign was carried out in order to build McCaughey’s reputation for attracting attention? Did I mention that Patrick McCaughey’s father later became the governor of the State of Victoria, in which Melbourne is located? One must not jump to conclusions, but these questions are worth considering.

Later, Patrick McCaughey’s ascendant career intersected with a controversial episode in Australian politics- the resignation of Gough Whitlam. On pages 168-170, Patrick McCaughey explains:

“In August 1974, I was invited to join the interim council of the National Gallery of Australia. [..] Starting with the acquisition of Jackson Pollock’s Blue Poles in August 1973 and fuelled by an acquisition budget the size of which ($4m) no other Australian art museum had ever seen, (James) Mollison had made a series of brilliant, yea, breathtaking purchases of twentieth-century art, thus laying the basis for the country’s only major collection of modern art. [..] In the case of Blue Poles, the approval required was none other than Gough Whitlam, prime minister and Minister for the Arts. As the tide turned against the Whitlam government, the expensive acquisitions of the National Gallery of Australia became an example of Labor’s profligacy.”

Given current valuations, one might have a strong case that the purchase of the Pollock painting purchased prior to Patrick McCaughey’s arrival on the committee turned out to be a good investment. The next section of his text (pp. 171-173) reveals a less fruitful adventure in the attempted acquisition of a statue now commonly given the name Victorious Youth:

“During the council’s first term there was considerable discussion of [..] a fourth century B.C. bronze, allegedly a ‘lost’ work by Lysippos. [..] The Greek bronze would represent classical antiquity. [..] James Mollison told me Russell Drysdale was the originator of the idea. [..] Nobody at the National Gallery had any expertise in classical art and the documentation on the bronze was inadequate for an acquisition of $3.7m – almost three times the cost of (Jackson Pollocks’s) Blue Poles.

The discussion about the Greek bronze went on through 1975. Whitlam, who had shown both courage and loyalty to the National Gallery, was increasingly vulnerable politically. Malcolm Fraser from the Opposition benches had asked him in Parliament about the amount spent on overseas works of art compared to Australian works. The figures were not flattering to the locals. A senior public servant’s memo to Whitlam in January 1975 stated that from December 1972 to October 1974, $4.5m had been spent on overseas works and only $0.5m on Australian works. Since October 1974, a further $3m had gone for overseas works and a mere $21,500 on two Australian works. Mollison kept pressing the claims for the Greek bronze, suggesting it could be financed by spreading payments over two financial years. Whitlam was deeply interested in the work. On one of his overseas trips, the eminent art historian, Nichloas Yalouris, had satisfied Whitlam’s concerns about the provenance. Found in the Adriatic in 1963, it certainly had a fishy smell.”

Just one year ago (in 2025), one art expert publicly insisted that Lysippos did not create the artwork in question (from https://news.artnet.com/art-world/victorious-youth-getty-bronze-attribution-massimo-osanna-2601463 ):

“Italian Cultural Chief Disputes Attribution of Famed Getty Bronze, Rankling Locals” “The name is not correct,” said Massimo Osanna. Victorious Youth (300–100 B.C.E.) on view at the Getty Villa, Los Angeles, California. by Min Chen, Jan 24, 2025

For years, legal wrangling has seen Italy and the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles battle over the ownership of an ancient Greek statue. Now, one of Italy’s leading cultural officials is casting doubt over another aspect of the work: its attribution.

Known as Victorious Youth, the bronze statue, nearly five feet tall, was recovered in 1964 from the Adriatic Sea by fishermen in the town of Fano. They later sold the figure, dated to 300–100 B.C.E., to a local antiquities dealer. The sculpture changed hands a few more times before appearing at the Munich art gallery of Herman Heinz Herzer, who restored the work and attributed it to Greek sculptor Lysippos.

After the Getty acquired Victorious Youth for $4 million in 1977, antiquities scholars, including the museum’s curator Jiri Frel, seconded the attribution to Lysippos after radiocarbon dating and an evaluation of its style and technique. Its current entry in the museum’s online collection, however, lists its creator as an ‘unknown maker, perhaps by a pupil of Lysippos.’

Now, the director general of Italy’s museums, Massimo Osanna, has raised his own skepticism about the statue’s attribution. Speaking to the London Times, he said: “We have no evidence it was by Lysippos apart from a vague stylistic similarity. The name is not correct.”

[..]

Lysippos, along with Scopas and Praxiteles, is considered one of the finest Classical Greek sculptors, his figures bearing elongated proportions in a bid to present “men as they appear to the eye.” According to Pliny, Lysippos produced some 1,500 sculptures, aided by his large workshop and crew of disciples—which has only added to the complexities of attribution.

Osanna believes that the bronze was a copy of an original Lysippos work, but insists that that shouldn’t detract from its artistic merit or value...”

Tracing the ownership dispute back provides several additional enlightening details related to corruption in the art world. From 2018 (per https://itsartlaw.org/cultural-heritage/victorious-youth-ownership-dispute-over-the-getty-bronze-continues/ ):

“Victorious Youth: Ownership dispute over the ‘Getty Bronze’ continues”

June 23, 2018 By Claire Dettelbach

Who is the rightful owner of a statue which was cast by the Ancient Greeks, discovered by Italians in international waters, subject to various international transactions, and which is now displayed in a United States museum? This is the question surrounding the “Victorious Youth”, a 3rd century BCE Greek bronze thought to have been inspired by or even made by the famous sculptor Lysippos. It is one of a very small number of surviving life-sized Greek bronzes. After lying submerged deep below the Adriatic Sea for centuries, the statue stands proudly on display at the John Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles since 1978 and has become such a mainstay that its alternative name is the “Getty Bronze”. However, despite its prominence at the Getty, the statue’s presence has been far from assured, and just recently the Getty’s ownership of it has grown even more uncertain.

On June 8, 2018, Italy’s Court for the Preliminary Investigations of Pesaro ruled that the “Victorious Youth” should be returned to Italy on the grounds that it was illegally exported following its initial discovery over fifty years ago. Faced with this ruling, the Getty says it plans to appeal the decision to Italy’s highest judicial authority, the Court of Cassation in Rome. This is not the first time the “Victorious Youth” has appeared in Italian courts. In fact, the saga of its complex and contentious past began the moment it was lifted out of the ocean and brought to mainland Italy.

In 1964, Italian fishermen found the bronze in the Adriatic Sea and brought it, concealed and undeclared, to the Italian port of Fano. They kept it hidden first in a garden patio and then buried in a cabbage patch while they searched for a buyer. A month later they sold it for $4,000 to art dealer Giacomo Barbetti, who kept the statue concealed in a church in Gubbio until late 1965, when he began showing it to potential buyers. One European buyer, immediately sensing the importance of the bronze, alerted the Carabinieri (Italy’s national police) of its existence. But by the time a police raid of the church was conducted, Barbetti and the bronze were long gone. In 1966, Barbetti, his accomplices, and the fisherman were charged with handling illegally exported goods, but the conviction was thrown out on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence that the statue was found in Italian waters or that it was of any historical importance.

Rumors circulated regarding the bronze’s whereabouts for the following three years. It now seems probable that it was illegally exported out of Italy into Brazil along with a shipment of medical equipment. It was not until 1969 that it resurfaced in London in the possession of the Luxembourg-based art Consortium Artemix Ltd, who bought it for $700,000. Heinz Herzer, a member of the Artemis group, immediately recognized the statue’s significance and had it shipped from London to his Munich studio. Wanting to sell the bronze for the price he knew it was worth, Herzer sought the opinion of a reputable expert to back up his attribution to Lysippus: for this purpose, he sent photographs to the British Museum’s curator of Greek and Roman Art, Bernard Ashmole. Ashmole agreed with Herzer’s attribution. In 1972, Ashmole brought the bronze to the attention of J. Paul Getty. Instantly enraptured by the “Victorious Youth”, Getty soon began negotiations on a deal of joint custody with Thomas Hoving, former director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Before signing on, Getty had extensive research done into the provenance of the work and demanded documented proof of Herzer’s clear title to the work. When Herzer was unable to procure such documentation, Getty dropped the deal. Herzer ended up selling the bronze in 1974 to a Luxembourg-based buyer. In 1977, after J. Paul Getty himself passed away, Burton Fredericksen, the chief curator of the Getty at the time, purchased the “Victorious Youth” for $3.95 million (https://chasingaphrodite.com). Fredricksen was not quite so exceptionally thorough in his communication with the Italian authorities as Getty had been, but nevertheless the bronze went on display in the J. Paul Getty Museum for the first time in 1978 and was an immediate success.

The murkiness of the bronze’s provenance is evident just by looking at the provenance explanation that the Getty gives in its description of the work: 1964 is listed as the date when the piece was “found”, and then there is a blank hole in the timeline until 1971, when the owner is listed as Heinz Herzer of Artemis Fine Arts Ltd. The discretion and secrecy with which the figure was brought into Italy are to blame for this hole in its story: the fisherman, and the dealer to whom he sold it, deliberately hid its existence from Italian authorities, knowing that to declare it would mean to give it up to the authorities.

In 1989, Italy made its first formal request to the Getty for the return of the bronze. Needless to say, the Getty did not relinquish the rare Greek statue. Faced with the Getty’s refusal, the controversy was brought to the Italian courts, and in 2010 the courts ordered a forfeiture, which the Getty promptly appealed. The forfeiture was upheld in 2012, and once again the Getty appealed. Finally, this year, the court has ruled on this most recent appeal, once again permitting the Italian government to demand the return of the ‘Victorious Youth’.

[..]

The Getty is no stranger to controversies of provenance. In 2007 the museum had to return more than 40 works to Greece and Italy over doubts as to their origins. Italy actually requested the “Victorious Youth” as part of this deal, but both parties agreed to set that particular piece aside until the larger deal was complete.”

Furthermore, according to another source ( https://art-crime.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-history-of-statue-of-victorious-youth.html ):

“…On November 3, 1973 Herzer wrote to Jiri Frel, curator of antiquities at the J.Paul Getty Museum from 1973 until 1984, to announce the failure of the negotiations to achieve an agreeable selling price among all parties for the joint acquisition of the statue between the J. Paul Getty Museum and the Metropolitan Museum.

In 1973, at the request of Italian officials, German police investigated Herzer about receipt of stolen goods in connection with the statue. The investigation was dropped for lack of evidence of wrongdoing, mainly because the Italian high court had concluded that there was no evidence that the statue had been found in Italy (or Italian waters) or that it was of Italian origin.

[..]

On January 9, 1974 the Italian Magistrate in Gubbio opened a court proceeding against unknown persons for the crime of clandestine exportation and issued an international rogatory request asking for the seizure of the sculpture, as well as an interrogation of Herzer as a suspect potentially involved in the clandestine exportation of archaeological finds from Italy. The request also asked for any photographic documentation Herzer might have of the statue.

It should be noted that up until that date neither the German authorities nor the Italian authorities had acquired a photo of the trafficked artwork in its original state, having just been raised from the sea. This would be a critical piece of evidence, necessary for the authorities in both countries to compare and ascertain whether the plundered antiquity from the Adriatic was the same as the restored bronze now in Herzer’s possession…”

The reputation of Heinz Herzer is explored further at the website https://art-crime.blogspot.com/2022/09/5191-16-plundered-egyptian-artefacts.html. “Heinz Herzer, as many followers of ARCA’s blog know, has his own interesting history in dealing with ancient objects with fabricated provenance.” (more details at https://art-crime.blogspot.com/search?q=Heinz+Herzer ).

The observant reader might have noticed that Patrick McCaughey’s memoir stated that the bronze statue was “found in 1963” while all other press accounts place its “discovery by the fishermen” in the year 1964. This apparent discrepancy is the second “typo” on the part of Patrick McCaughey. But perhaps it is not exactly a “typo”. Rather, could it be that Patrick McCaughey knew of the existence of the statue in 1963? Could it be that the bronze was simply cast on location by swindlers (or worse) - in 1963 rather than crafted by would-be artists in 100-300 BC, only to be found in 1964 by fishermen in the Adriatic Sea? Could it be that the “carbon dating” was faked to suggest an earlier date of creation? Could it be that Bernard Ashmole was compensated for rendering an opinion favorable to those who insit the statue was made by Lysippos?

Only a few pages later (on p. 179), McCaughey uses an interesting choice of phrase in describing an extended visit to Rome:

“Bracciano, famous for its lake and massive Orisini-Odescalchi castle, straight out of central casting, was an ideal base.”

Is it possible that Patrick McCaughey’s choice of the word ‘casting’ alludes to the casting (in bronze) of Victorious Youth? If this hunch is correct, is it also conceivable that the word ‘central’ might refer to a certain intelligence agency?

Readers unfamiliar with the inner historical working of the Australian government might be surprised to learn that an article by John Pilger of The Guardian described Gough Whitlam’s forced resignation as a coup organized in the United States and Britain (from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-whitlam-1975-coup-ended-australian-independence ):

“The British-American coup that ended Australian independence” by John Pilger, 23 Oct 2014

“Across the media and political establishment in Australia, a silence has descended on the memory of the great, reforming prime minister Gough Whitlam. His achievements are recognised, if grudgingly, his mistakes noted in false sorrow. But a critical reason for his extraordinary political demise will, they hope, be buried with him.

Australia briefly became an independent state during the Whitlam years, 1972-75. An American commentator wrote that no country had “reversed its posture in international affairs so totally without going through a domestic revolution”. Whitlam ended his nation’s colonial servility. He abolished royal patronage, moved Australia towards the Non-Aligned Movement, supported “zones of peace” and opposed nuclear weapons testing.

Latin Americans will recognise the audacity and danger of this “breaking free” in a country whose establishment was welded to great, external power. Australians had served every British imperial adventure since the Boxer rebellion was crushed in China. In the 1960s, Australia pleaded to join the US in its invasion of Vietnam, then provided “black teams” to be run by the CIA. US diplomatic cables published last year by WikiLeaks disclose the names of leading figures in both main parties, including a future prime minister and foreign minister, as Washington’s informants during the Whitlam years.

Whitlam knew the risk he was taking. The day after his election, he ordered that his staff should not be “vetted or harassed” by the Australian security organisation, Asio – then, as now, tied to Anglo-American intelligence. When his ministers publicly condemned the US bombing of Vietnam as “corrupt and barbaric”, a CIA station officer in Saigon said: “We were told the Australians might as well be regarded as North Vietnamese collaborators.”

Whitlam demanded to know if and why the CIA was running a spy base at Pine Gap near Alice Springs, a giant vacuum cleaner which, as Edward Snowden revealed recently, allows the US to spy on everyone. “Try to screw us or bounce us,” the prime minister warned the US ambassador, “[and Pine Gap] will become a matter of contention”.

When Whitlam was re-elected for a second term, in 1974, the White House sent Marshall Green to Canberra as ambassador. Green was an imperious, sinister figure who worked in the shadows of America’s “deep state”. Known as “the coupmaster”, he had played a central role in the 1965 coup against President Sukarno in Indonesia – which cost up to a million lives. One of his first speeches in Australia, to the Australian Institute of Directors, was described by an alarmed member of the audience as “an incitement to the country’s business leaders to rise against the government”.

The Americans and British worked together. In 1975, Whitlam discovered that Britain’s MI6 was operating against his government. “The Brits were actually decoding secret messages coming into my foreign affairs office,” he said later. One of his ministers, Clyde Cameron, told me, “We knew MI6 was bugging cabinet meetings for the Americans.” In the 1980s, senior CIA officers revealed that the “Whitlam problem” had been discussed “with urgency” by the CIA’s director, William Colby, and the head of MI6, Sir Maurice Oldfield.

[..]

On 10 November 1975, Whitlam was shown a top-secret telex message sourced to Theodore Shackley, the notorious head of the CIA’s East Asia division, who had helped run the coup against Salvador Allende in Chile two years earlier.

Shackley’s message was read to Whitlam. It said that the prime minister of Australia was a security risk in his own country. The day before, (the governor-general of Australia, Sir John) Kerr had visited the headquarters of the Defence Signals Directorate, Australia’s NSA, where he was briefed on the “security crisis”.

On 11 November – the day Whitlam was to inform parliament about the secret CIA presence in Australia – he was summoned by Kerr. Invoking archaic vice-regal “reserve powers”, Kerr sacked the democratically elected prime minister. The “Whitlam problem” was solved, and Australian politics never recovered, nor the nation its true independence.”

In stark contrast to the 2014 article from The Guardian, a New York Times article from 1975, at the time of the ‘coup’ described by the Guardian article, attributed the forced removal of Whitlam strictly to budgetary concerns. https://nytimes.com/1975/11/11/archives/australia-leader-is-ordered-to-quit-governor-removes-whitlam-in.html (By Fox Butterfield Special to The New York Times Nov. 11, 1975):

“CANBERRA, Australia, Tuesday, Nov. 11—Australia’s Governor General dismissed Prime Minister Gough Whitlam today and ordered the leader of the Opposition to form a caretaker Government until elections could be held. The action, by Sir John Kerr, was unprecedented in Australia’s 75‐year history as a federation, and seemed to catch everyone, including the Prime Minister by surprise.

However, it was not immediately clear whether Mr. Whitlam would accept the Governor General’s action and resign. In the House of Representatives this afternoon, the Prime Minister responded to the action by formally moving that the Speaker of the House notify the Governor General he still had a majority.

[..]

The Governor General’s attempt to remove Mr. Whitlam from office was designed to end a bitter month‐long dispute over the national budget.

The Opposition coalition had refused to approve the budget in the Senate, Australia’s upper house, after it had been passed by the House of Representatives. The Opposition which controls the Senate, had hoped in this way to force the Government to call a general election.

[..]

The unusual nature of the situation is underscored by the fact that the Governor General, the representative of the British Crown in Australia, was appointed in 1974 by Mr. Whitlam. Although largely a figurehead, he does have the potential power to dismiss a Government.

[..]

The budget crisis followed a year of problems for Mr. Whitlam, whose popularity fell from, 55 percent to 34 percent under the impact of financial scandals involving Cabinet members and the worst inflation and unemployment since the Depression of the 1930’s.

[..]

The Liberals’ move to block; the budget had appeared to backfire against them, as public opinion interpreted the antics as further trouble for the economy. Because all allocations were frozen, the Government had already failed to pay some contractors and was expected to run out of money to pay civil servants on Nov. 27.”

The suggestion that Gough Whitlam might be authorizing millions of Australia’s tax money on a statue, which an expert now proclaims to be of fake provenance and origin, instead of paying civil servants surely contributed to the perception that the overthrow of the Whitlam government was an internal matter related to wasteful spending.

Gallery E

Shortly after the passage referring to the “Orsini-Odelscalchi castle, straight out of central casting”, Patrick McCaughey describes a “strange encounter” with Anthony Blunt, the disgraced traitor to Britain known as “The Fourth Man” of the infamous Cambridge Five (p. 179).

“I had arranged to work at the Bibliotethek Hertziana with its remarkable collection of visitors’ accounts of Italy. Here I began to read systematically and in its hallowed halls I had a strange encounter.

The Bibliotethek Hertziana is a very superior institution. Run by the Germans, it is matchlessly efficient. All books used by day are meticulously re-shelved overnight. An equally superior reader goes along with the establishment. Smart-looking Italian girls, the learned of Europe and America, the Privat Student. They cannot be early risers for on that sunny September morning (in 1980) I was virtually alone in the Bibliotethek. Standing next to me at the card index was a tall, skeletal Englishman. I knew him to be English by his nylon socks and the gap between his summer slacks and his sandals. I looked up and saw that it was Anthony Blunt, only recently unmasked as the ‘Fourth Man’ in the Burgess-Maclean-Philby spy ring and scandal. Unceremoniously defrocked by the British Establishment, he was ‘hiding out’ in Rome. For once, conversation failed me.”

If we take Patrick McCaughey at his word, it would seem that an exposed and disgraced master spy ‘hiding out’ failed to recognize that his dress- including socks worn with sandals- gave away his English nationality, leading to his identification.

Before continuing McCaughey’s account of this strange encounter, it is essential to outline the background of Anthony Blunt. A contemporary account from the New York Times on 21 November 1979 describes the exposure of Anthony Blunt (at https://www.nytimes.com/1979/11/21/archives/unmasked-exspy-admits-an-appalling-mistake-network-called.html ) as follows:

“LONDON, Nov. 20 — Anthony Blunt emerged from hiding today to admit that he had made “an appalling mistake,” one he came to “bitterly regret,” by agreeing 40 years ago to spy for the Soviet Union. But he insisted that he had done so out of idealism.

“This was a case of political conscience against loyalty to country,” the tall, angular 72‐year‐old art historian declared in a 900‐word statement. “I chose conscience.”

Mr. Blunt gave few details of his undercover work as a member of the spy ring that also included Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean and H. A. R. Philby, all of whom later fled to Moscow. He denied that he had warned Mr. Maclean that he was about to be arrested and he denied that he had had a homosexual relationship with Mr. Burgess. He admitted that he had helped to recruit other agents at Cambridge University, but refused to disclose how many or to name any.

“My guess would be that there must have been a great many more people involved in this,” Mr. Blunt told interviewers from The Times of London and The Guardian. “I think that it is common knowledge that he network was considerable. Twenty has been said, but I should think that that was probably an exaggeration.”

However, Mr. Blunt hinted very vaguely at the existence of a “fifth man” in the case. His comments, together with those of one of his closest friends, Brian Sewell, and a web of circumstantial evidence, pointed to Tomas Harris, an English art dealer with links to republican Spain who knew Mr. Blunt, Mr. Philby and Mr. Burgess.

In the House of Commons, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher formally abandoned the Government’s protection-of‐official‐information bill. Its critics had said that it would have prevented publication of Andrew Boyle’s book, “The Climate of Treason,” which eventually led to the unmasking of Mr. Blunt.

[..]

It was an absorbing spectacle to which Britons were treated tonight in their evening newspapers and on all three television networks: a confessed spy, a man who had served as curator of the royal art collection for 27 years, a man who had been a knight until his espionage activities were exposed last week, defending himself with aristocratic aplomb and coolly describing his double life.

[..]

Mr. Blunt, who is the world’s leading authority on the French painter Nicolas Poussin, said of Mr. Burgess: “The man I first met as an undergraduate was one of the most remarkable, most brilliant and, making a distinction, one of the most intelligent people I have ever known. He was already extremely tiresome and difficult, but he had a mind which went absolutely to the bottom of any question.”

His disillusionment with Communism, he indicated, was a gradual process. He said it was started “by the information which came out immediately after the war, about the camps, etc.” Such episodes, Mr Blunt said, “had a cumulative effect and by 1951 I was clear.”

The art historian said that at about that time his Soviet control officer had ordered him to defect, but that he had refused because “I was totally disillusioned with Russia, and the process of thought I remember going through was that I would rather spend another month, even in danger, in England than 10 years in Russia.”

Was he by then entirely reconciled to the British system?

“Yes,” Mr. Blunt replied. “I think that the British way of life and British constitution are the best, better than the American.”

Q: How do you feel about being called a traitor now?

A: I can’t deny it.

Q: Do you feel like a traitor? Do you feel you betrayed Britain?

A: I feel I haven’t betrayed my conscience.

Mr. Blunt defended himself vigorously against charges that he had dishonored the monarchy. He said that he had written to Buckingham Palace last week offering to resign his knighthood, but that he was stripped of it before the letter arrived. And he said that he was right to have stayed on as curator of the Queen’s pictures after his confession, “although you say I should never have accepted the job, I can see the logic.”

He expressed some confusion on the point but said he thought that Queen Elizabeth II remained ignorant of his past until the 1970’s. But he said he was told at the time of his confession that the decision to grant him immunity from prosecution “had been made at the highest level, by which I took it, in fact I think I was told specifically, meant the Prime Minister.” Lord Home, the Prime Minister at the time, has said he never heard about the Blunt case.”

In 1983, Anthony Blunt died, and a Washington Post article (available at https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90-00552R000100600003-3.pdf ) provides an overview of the events as viewed four years after the disclosure of Anthony Blunt as ‘The Fourth Man’.

“Anthony Blunt, 75, Dies; Was Soviet Spy in Britain

27 March 1983 Washington Post:

“It was Mr. Blunt who tipped off Burgess and Maclean in 1951 that British security agents were closing in to arrest them, enabling them to escape to the Soviet Union. Since then, speculation had grown about the spy who must have tipped Burgess and Maclean that the game was up, and who more than a quarter of a century later still had not been unmasked. “The name which the honorable gentleman has given me is that of Sir Anthony Blunt,” Mrs. Thatcher revealed in 1979. “In April 1964,” Mrs. Thatcher said, “Sir Anthony Blunt admitted to the security authorities that he had been recruited by and had acted as a talent spotter for Russian intelligence before the war (WWII) when he was a don at Cambridge and had passed information regularly to the Russians while he was a member of the security services between 1940 and 1945.

[..]

Mr. Blunt’s espionage career began to surface publicly after the 1979 publication of a book by Andrew Boyle, which did not name Blunt but dropped enough hints about a “fourth man” that members of Parliament raised the matter in the House of Commons. ”

In the period of time since Blunt’s death, some have suggested that members of the Philby spy ring were actually working for the British. For example, in 1994, Ron Rosenbaum wrote the following for the New York Times Magazine. He suggested that “cryptic annotations in the margins of the Philby book” (Philby’s memoir) jotted down by Graham Greene, author and former MI6 associate of Philby, suggest the theme of the Cambridge spy ring being composed of triple agents.

www.thestacksreader.com/kim-philby-and-the-age-of-paranoia/ and https://archive.is/ui2O8

By Ron Rosenbaum, The New York Times Magazine, July 10, 1994

“The presence of the Philby papers in London was still a closely guarded secret when I stumbled on them through an inadvertent slip by Graham Greene’s nephew. I’d found him, the nephew, in the cluttered basement of his Gloucester Road Bookshop, where he’d been preparing for the imminent sale of the late novelist’s personal library.

I’d come to see him about one volume from that library in particular, Greene’s copy of My Silent War, the memoirs of Kim Philby, the spy of the century. It had been reported that Greene had made some cryptic annotations in the margins of the Philby book, and I hoped they might provide a clue to the strange story I was pursuing. A story about a possible deathbed revelation Graham Greene had had about Philby.”

Later, the article explains the “possible deathbed revelation” as follows:

“Imagine Greene’s distress, then, at the possibility that Philby had been not a Soviet double agent but a British triple agent. Greene had gone out on a limb to portray Philby as a passionate pilgrim, a sincere devotee of the Marxist faith—radically innocent rather than radically evil. But if, in fact, his friend had all along been an agent of the Empire, a hireling of Colonel Blimp, it would mean that Philby had been laughing at Greene. Not merely laughing at him, but using him, using him as cover. Graham Greene would turn out to be Kim Philby’s final fool.”

Comparatively few, however, have been convinced that Anthony Blunt, Kim Philby, and the other members of the spy ring were truly working for the British. After the release of formerly-restricted information in 2009, widely-acclaimed investigative journalist Chapman Pincher, at the age of 95, penned the following in regard to Anthony Blunt (from https://www.express.co.uk/expressyourself/116110/The-blunt-truth-about-Britain-s-wicked-traitor ):

“The blunt truth about Britain’s wicked traitor” by Chapman Pincher, 24 July 2009

The newly released posthumous “memoirs” of Anthony Blunt, the British traitor who worked for the KGB, were calculated to engender sympathy and understanding for his many years of most dangerous treachery against his own people.

The now fully known details of what this villain did throughout the Second World War, when the nation was fighting for its existence, expose him as a calculating liar. It is a truth far removed from the “naive” university don he claims to have been when he made “the biggest mistake of his life” by allowing a younger student called Guy Burgess to recruit him to Soviet service, according to the memoirs released by the British Library more than a quarter of a century after his death.

Here is the real story of Blunt and MI5’s extraordinary efforts to keep his treachery secret to avoid revealing that he had worked inside that agency through most of the war. He even provided Stalin with plans for the D-Day invasion of France, including photographs of the landing beaches.

While Blunt no doubt would have claimed he was assisting an ally the truth was the plans could have leaked to the Germans had there been a Nazi spy in the Kremlin or a Russian general who had read them and been captured.

During his first two years of KGB service Blunt was responsible for the initial stage of the recruitment of Scots student John Cairncross who was first to alert the Russians about the atomic bomb, betrayed the ultra-secret that Britain was breaking German Enigma codes and supplied the KGB with more than 5,000 secret documents.

Blunt also recruited two other Cambridge students, American Michael Straight and Leo Long, an Englishman who became a damaging spy, run throughout his espionage career by Blunt himself.

In June 1940 Blunt was transferred from the Army to MI5, the security service supposed to detect and counter spies, where he betrayed every secret on which he could lay his thieving hands.

[..]

Interviews in Blunt’s flat spread over eight years produced a mass of admissions but those who interviewed him were convinced that he withheld information. KGB records have since shown that Blunt gave the Russians 1,771 MI5 documents, some of them complete files.

He had stated that when a communist revolution came to Britain he “fully expected to be made commissar for the arts”.

[..]

Sir Michael Havers, then attorney general, told me that he had been horrified by the circumstances and when MI5 declined to change its stance, he had induced Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to expose Blunt in Parliament. She had realised the political implications if the old traitor pocketed libel damages while MI5 had stood aloof. In November 1979 Thatcher gave Parliament and the public what she believed to be a full account of Blunt’s treachery though without revealing how he had been secretly exposed in 1963.

[..]

The extraordinary facts of Blunt’s life are not to be excused by this dull, self-serving document. Nowhere does he apologise to the people he betrayed so ruthlessly. There should be no regrets expressed for him.”

Patrick McCaughey’s memoir continues the story of his “strange encounter” with Anthony Blunt in September 1980 as follows:

“All morning he worked across from me in the main reading room. Curiosity got the better of me that afternoon. I went upstairs and found Studies in Renaissance and Baroque Art presented to Anthony Blunt on his 60^th birthday. The frontispiece is a chilling black-and-white photo of Blunt. In the corner an anonymous scholiast had drawn an immaculate hammer and sickle. Well, well, well. Blunt had been ‘outed’ for only a matter of months and this was the Bibliotethek Hertziana where writing on the books is so rare that it does not have to be discouraged. I looked up other Blunt titles. In the preface to his monograph on Borromini, Blunt wrote about his early interest in Baroque architecture and went on to say: ‘I was, however, distracted by other preoccupations – namely Poussin and seventeenth-century French art…’ The same neat scholiast had drawn an arrow after ‘preoccupations’ and written in the margin ‘Such as espionage’. Burdened with such knowledge, I was paralyzed, much to the chagrin of Michael Davie, then editor of the Age to whom I later told the story.”

If we take Patrick McCaughey at his word, it would seem that Margaret Thatcher’s government permitted Anthony Blunt to travel abroad freely and conspicuously-randomly bringing back socks with sandals- in September 1980, less than one year after he had been named as a spy and traitor to the British government.

An astute observation, allegedly by ‘the scholiast’ who had ‘written in the margin’ of the book, is that espionage- rather than the study of art history- surely occupied much of Anthony Blunt’s time. Could it be that the associates of the Cambridge spy ring arranged for ghost-writers to compose the books credited to Anthony Blunt, providing Anthony Blunt with a ‘cover story’ about his time and activities? It would clearly be logical for a spy network to place Anthony Blunt as an art critic in that it would both free his time for nefarious espionage activities while gaining him prestige and access to the creative class from which he might recruit accomplices.

The use of a cover of an art critic (or music critic or literary critic) for a spy would be ideal in that a cabal of conspirators could ghostwrite passages for him and subsequently laud the passages they themselves crafted, increasing the perceived merit of the spy-critic to elevate his influence among targets and their information. Few would have the moxie to proclaim that art critic to be incorrect in his or her interpretation of a particular painting or sculpture. After all, there is no objective mathematical formula for proving or disproving the value of a work of art.

Of course, historically speaking, there are exceptional individuals with tremendous insight who passionately critique art, and the aforementioned John Ruskin is one such genius.

Gallery F

To provide an outline of John Ruskin’s brilliant insight, here are a few passages from the preface of a book published by John Wiley and Sons in 1870 titled The True and the Beautiful, which offers “Selections for Ruskin’s works”-works which are quite voluminous- chosen for an American audience.

Its preface by Mrs. L.C. Tuthill explains:

“Although novelty is generally a source of pleasure, yet what is new sometimes meets with opposition, merely because it is new. About twenty years ago a book appeared in London, entitled, “Modern Painters: By a Graduate of Oxford;” the main object of which was to vindicate the reputation of the landscape painter Turner, whose pictures had been ruthlessly assailed by the Reviewers.

The author confesses that the book originated “in indignation at the shallow and false criticism of the periodicals of the day on the works of the great living artist.”

And who was this presumptive “Graduate,” who thus threw down the gauntlet. And defied the mighty host of Reviewers? A young man unknown to fame! A mere fledgling from the University!

Yet in his book there was a bold originality, an uncompromising independence, quite startling to the lovers of the old, beaten track – the devotees to precedent.

[..]

The “Graduate” says, “when public taste seems plunging deeper and deeper into degradation day by day, and when the press universally exerts such power as it possesses, to direct the feeling of the nation more completely to all that is theatrical, affected, and false in Art; while is vents its ribald buffooneries on the most exalted truth, and the highest ideal of landscape, that this or any other age had ever witnessed, it becomes the imperative duty of all who have any perception of knowledge of what is really great in Art, and any desire for its advancement in England, to come fearlessly forward, regardless of such individual interests as are likely to be injured by the knowledge of what is good and right, to demonstrate, wherever they exist, the essence and the authority of the Beautiful and True.”

[..]

The Reviewers, who had so severely handled the landscape painter, now pounced upon the painter’s fiery advocate, who had challenged them to the encounter.

Undaunted by their fulmination, “the Graduate” comes out with a second edition of “Modern Painters”… [..] Again, the novelty and boldness of the writer’s views startled and irritated the ice-bound advocates of precedent. Though no longer treated by the Reviewers with unmitigated contempt, he was still subjected to the lash of criticism.”

One example of a searing (and witty) response by John Ruskin to his many critics is included here:

The preface continues by describing Ruskin’s development of Stones of Venice and the third and fourth volumes of Modern Painters. One might summarize the passage by saying it credits John Ruskin’s astonishing insight into both Nature and Art. Among the most vital observations in the preface by Mrs. Tuthill is that John Ruskin credits his Christian faith as the source of his inspiration.

“As a Christian Philosopher, Mr. Ruskin deservedly ranks with the “judicious” Hooker, the eloquent Jeremy Taylor, and the “divine” Herbert. A devout spirit animates and inspires all his works. In the lowly cottage and the lofty cathedral, in the smiling valley and in the sublime mountain-top, he has an over-realizing sense of the presence of God; and acknowledges that divine presence, not with light words, but with words of solemn import; - not the God of Nature alone, but as the Almighty Father and Friend revealed in the life-giving gospel of Jesus Christ.”

An artist whom John Ruskin held in his very highest regard is Leonardo Da Vinci, and his rationale is exceptionally insightful. To wit, Ruskin states (pp. 213 and also found at https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/38923/pg38923-images.html ):

“Greatness in style consists then: first, in the choice of habitual subjects of thought which involve wide interest and profound passions. The style is greater or less than in exact proportion to the nobleness of the interests and passions of the subject. The habitual choice of sacred subjects, such as the Nativity, the Transfiguration, Crucifixion (if the choice be sincere), implies that the painter has a natural disposition to dwell on the highest thoughts of which humanity is capable; it constitutes him so far forth a painter of the highest order, as for instance, Leonardo, in his painting of the Last Supper; he who delights in representing the acts or meditations of great men, as for instance Raphael painting the School of Athens, is so far forth, a painter of the second order; he who represents the passions and events of ordinary life, the third.”

One might anticipate that John Ruskin’s observation suggests that Leonardo Da Vinci’s source of inspiration was also his Christian faith.

The “wicked traitor” Anthony Blunt also included a chapter about Leonardo Da Vinci in his book titled Artistic Theory in Italy, 1450-1600, first published in 1940, the year Blunt turned 33 years old. Excerpts here are from a second edition published in 1956, which notes that only “minor mistakes were corrected”.

It contains a curious and undated reference as a source of information on Leonardo Da Vinci. However, the reference recounted by Anthony Blunt instead proposes that Leonardo was inspired in his paintings by secular humanism rather than Christianity. In a seeming coincidence, many of the topics elucidated by Anthony Blunt in regard to Leonardo happens to look exceedingly like those of John Ruskin.

The reference from Blunt’s book in question reads:

“This manuscript formed the basis of the edition of Leonardo’s writings prepared by H. Ludwig for Eitelberger’s Quellenschriften fur Kunstgeschichte, which is the most convenient edition, and that generally referred to here.”

This source is cited repeatedly after its introduction. No date for the source is provided by Anthony Blunt, but the first appearance of that German source is evidently in the 1870’s. Anthony Blunt explains the context of the reference:

“Apart from Michelangelo, Leonardo is the only great painter of the Italian Renaissance who has left in writing any quantity of material dealing with the arts, and we should expect that the opinions and ideas of such a man would throw more light on Renaissance art-theories than all the systematic and philosophical treatises of the laymen who wrote in the sixteenth century. Many of his theories do, of course, give us information about the methods and ideas of the period which we cannot derive from other sources, but the confusion of the surviving manuscripts and the lack of plan in the notes make it impossible to deduce a really coherent theory of the arts from Leonardo’s written works.

Leonardo evidently intended to write a full-dress treatise on painting, and, according to Luca Pacioili, some sections of it were finished by 1498. If this is so, the parts in question are lost, but many schemes for the general plan of the treatise, not all of them consistent with each other, survive in the existing material. What we actually have left of Leonardo’s writing is an enormous mass of notes, mostly jotted on the margins of sketch-books. These notes are either passages which Leonardo copied down form what he read, or original ideas embodying a personal theory or observation.

The datable manuscripts cover a period from 1489 to 1518. The originals are to be found in many public and private libraries, particularly in Paris and at Windsor, and most of them have been published. Even more important, however, for the present purpose is a copy of the originals, now in the Vatican Library, made by a sixteenth century student, evidently with the idea of publication, in which the notes are to some extent arranged by subjects.”

It is after this last sentence that the obscure and vague “H. Ludwig” German reference first appears. Thus, the set of notes taken by an unnamed “sixteenth century student”- and housed at the Vatican library, is the main source of Leonardo Da Vinci written ideas, according to the “calculating liar” Anthony Blunt.

Curiously, it seems that the vaunted art critic was unaware of dozens of (alleged) works titled “Treatise on Painting” and credited to Leonardo, well prior to the 1870’s, according to a website which is maintained by The Institute of Advanced Technology in the Humanities, University of Virginia, with Author Francesca Fiorani ( https://treatiseonpainting.org/cocoon/leonardo/printEd/all ). Here are a few examples from that website:

Even more are listed with publication dates between 1877 and 1940, the latter being the year that the first edition of Blunt’s book was published. Several of the titles are in English, including a version published by Taylor in London in 1796 (highlighted with a red rectangle).

Note that even the second edition of Blunt’s book, published in 1956-sixteen years after the first edition, had no added citations of Treatise on Painting. How can that be? Consider that the difficulty may NOT have been a failure by Anthony Blunt to perform a proper literature search; rather, it is more likely that certain versions of the Treatise on Painting (and perhaps all versions) have falsified publication dates.

Anthony Blunt continues:

“The first printed edition, based on two manuscript copies, was published in Paris by Dufresne in 1651. It is of little importance for the study of the text, since it is incomplete and inaccurate, and its chief interest lies in the engravings illustrating it, which were made after drawings by Poussin in order to explain points in Leonardo’s writings.”

By “Poussin”, Anthony Blunt refers to Nicolas Poussin (1594-1665), who served as the First Painter to the King for Louis XIII of France and Cardinal Richelieu. Francesco Melzi, left unnamed by Anthony Blunt, is the “student” whom others allege compiled what has come to be called the Treatise on Painting, as can be deduced by the reference to a “1651 Paris publication” in this 2012 publication in (https://www.jstor.org/stable/27206503 ) associated with Francesca Fiorani, who also is associated with the website sourced above:

(Francesca Fiorani, project director, U. Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 2013, Comptes Rendus Sur Les Ressources Numeriques) “Leonardo da Vinci and His Treatise on Painting,

…It is well-established that Leonardo always intended to write a treatise on painting but died before completing the project. His students and heir, Francesco Melzi, culled from his master’s notebooks all the material the he estimated would have been included in this treatise and compiled the original version of the text known today as the Treatise on Painting. Melzi completed his manuscript around 1540 (MS Urb. Lat. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana). There are three further iterations of Leonardo’s so-called Treatise on Painting that have survived: an abridged version of Melzi’s original compilation in manuscript form (c. 1570); a second manuscript of an edited version promoted by Cassiano dal Pozzo in Rome (c. 1634-43); and the first printed version which appeared in Paris c. 1640-51.

[..]

As the introduction to the digital project makes clear, what we know today as the Treatise on Painting is, in fact, a fragmented and disorganized fabrication...”

One can’t help but wonder if the “fabrication” of “Treatise on Painting” might bear some resemblance to the “central casting” of Victorious Youth.

Gallery G

Given the above reference, it is a curious fact that Sigmund Freud published an essay in 1910 which specifically named Francesco Melzi as Leonardo’s student but-according to the link below- referred to the “treatise on painting” only in lower case, without crediting Melzi for “culling” the material for it from Leonardo Da Vinci’s notebooks and organizing it into a manuscript.

https://ia902907.us.archive.org/17/items/SigmundFreud/Sigmund%20Freud%20%5B1910%5D%20Leonardo%20da%20Vinci%20-%20A%20Psychosexual%20Study%20of%20an%20Infantile%20Reminiscence%20%28James%20Strachey%20translation%2C%201955%29.pdf

Freud provides an introduction, as follows, which provocatively suggests Leonardo felt he had been a failure with respect to art:

“Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) was admired even by his contemporaries as one of the greatest men of the Italian renaissance; yet in their time he had already begun to seem an enigma, just as he does to us today. He was a universal genius ‘whose outlines can only be surmised, - never defined’. In his own time his most decisive influence was in painting, and it was left to us to recognize the greatness of the natural scientist (and engineer) that was combined in him with the artist. Though he left behind him masterpieces of painting, while his scientific discoveries remained unpublished and unused, the investigator in him never in the course of his development left the artist entirely free, but often made severe encroachments on him and perhaps in the end suppressed him. In the last hour of his life, according to the words that Vasari gives him, he reproached himself with having offended God and man by his failure to do his duty in his art. And even if this story of Vasari’s has neither external nor much internal probability but belongs to the legend which began to be woven around the mysterious Master even before his death, it is still of incontestable value as evidence of what men believed at the time.”

After this introduction, Freud’s portrayal of Da Vinci stands in stark contrast to that of John Ruskin from several decades prior. Sigmund Freud either speculated about Leonardo Da Vinci’s life on matters he had no means of knowing, or- more likely- Freud fabricated lies about Da Vinci for ulterior purposes. Freud continues later:

“It is doubtful whether Leonardo ever embraced a woman in passion; nor is it known that he had any intimate mental relationship with a woman, such as Michelangelo’s with Vittoria Colonna. While he was still an apprentice, living in the house of his master Verrocchio, a charge of forbidden homosexual practices was brought against him, along with some other young people, which ended in his acquittal. He seems to have fallen under this suspicion because he had employed a boy of bad reputation as a model. When he had become a Master, he surrounded himself with handsome boys and youths whom he took as pupils. The last of these pupils, Francesco Melzi, accompanied him to France, remained with him up to his death and was named by him as his heir. Without sharing in the certainty of his modern biographers, who naturally reject the possibility that there was a sexual relationship between him and his pupils as a baseless insult to the great man, we may take it as much more probable that Leonardo’s affectionate relations with the young men who - as was the custom with pupils at that time - shared his existence did not extend to sexual activity. Moreover a high degree of sexual activity is not to be attributed to him.”

Thus, Freud pronounced that in regard to Leonardo Da Vinci, we must “allow him to be reckoned as a homosexual”, providing no tangible evidence to support his assertion. The section above also demonstrates Sigmund Freud’s uncanny tendency to suggest that an outrageous claim is possible, only thereafter to “clarify” that the very same claim is improbable for an equally outrageous reason.

Sigmund Freud also suggested in this 1910 essay through a psychoanalysis of a story about a vulture that Leonardo da Vinci became a homosexual- and implied he was a pedophile- as a result of actions of his mother when he was an infant (pp. 2262-2263). This claim by Freud, as with virtually all of them, is utterly baseless:

“If we examine with the eyes of a psycho-analyst Leonardo’s phantasy of the vulture, it does not appear strange for long. We seem to recall having come across the same sort of thing in many places, for example in dreams; so that we may venture to translate the phantasy from its own special language into words that are generally understood. The translation is then seen to point to an erotic content. A tail, ‘coda’, is one of the most familiar symbols and substitutive expressions for the male organ, in Italian no less than in other languages; the situation in the phantasy, of a vulture opening the child’s mouth and beating about inside it vigorously with its tail, corresponds to the idea of an act of fellatio, a sexual act in which the penis is put into the mouth of the person involved. It is strange that this phantasy is so completely passive in character; moreover it resembles certain dreams and phantasies found in women or passive homosexuals (who play the part of the woman in sexual relations).

I hope the reader will restrain himself and not allow a surge of indignation to prevent his following psychoanalysis any further because it leads to an unpardonable aspersion on the memory of a great and pure man the very first time it is applied to his case. Such indignation, it is clear, will never be able to tell us the significance of Leonardo’s childhood phantasy; at the same time Leonardo has acknowledged the phantasy in the most unambiguous fashion, and we cannot abandon our expectation - or, if it sounds better, our prejudice - that a phantasy of this kind must have some meaning, in the same way as any other psychical creation: a dream, a vision or a delirium. Let us rather therefore give a fair hearing for a while to the work of analysis, which indeed has not yet spoken its last word.

The inclination to take a man’s sexual organ into the mouth and suck at it, which in respectable society is considered a loathsome sexual perversion, is nevertheless found with great frequency among women of today - and of earlier times as well, as ancient sculptures show -, and in the state of being in love it appears completely to lose its repulsive character. Phantasies derived from this inclination are found by doctors even in women who have not become aware of the possibilities of obtaining sexual satisfaction in this way by reading Krafft Ebing’s Psychopathia Sexualis or from other sources of information. Women, it seems, find no difficulty in producing this kind of wishful phantasy spontaneously. Further investigation informs us that this situation, which morality condemns with such severity, may be traced to an origin of the most innocent kind. It only repeats in a different form a situation in which we all once felt comfortable - when we were still in our suckling days (‘essendo io in culla’) and took our mother’s (or wet-nurse’s) nipple into our mouth and sucked at it. The organic impression of this experience - the first source of pleasure in our life- doubtless remains indelibly printed on us; and when at a later date the child becomes familiar with the cow’s udder whose function is that of a nipple, but whose shape and position under the belly make it resemble a penis, the preliminary stage has been reached which will later enable him to form the repellent sexual phantasy.

Now we understand why Leonardo assigned the memory of his supposed experience with the vulture to his suckling period. What the phantasy conceals is merely a reminiscence of sucking - or being suckled – at his mother’s breast, a scene of human beauty that he, like so many artists, undertook to depict with his brush, in the guise of the mother of God and her child.”

Taking the totality of this passage into consideration, we may interpret that Sigmund Fraud- oops, Freud- sought to evoke an image of the Virgin Mary performing fellatio upon baby Jesus. However, Freud constructed the paragraphs in a fashion which permits plausible deniability that it was his aim to do so. Continuing on:

“There is indeed another point which we do not yet understand and which we must not lose sight of: this reminiscence, which has the same importance for both sexes, has been transformed by the man Leonardo into a passive homosexual phantasy. For the time being we shall put aside the question of what there may be to connect homosexuality with sucking at the mother’s breast, merely recalling that tradition does in fact represent Leonardo as a man with homosexual feelings. In this connection, it is irrelevant to our purpose whether the charge brought against the young Leonardo was justified or not. What decides whether we describe someone as an invert is not his actual behaviour, but his emotional attitude.

Our interest is next claimed by another unintelligible feature of Leonardo’s childhood phantasy. We interpret the phantasy as one of being suckled by his mother, and we find his mother replaced by – a vulture. Where does this vulture come from and how does it happen to be found in its present place?

At this point a thought comes to the mind from such a remote quarter that it would be tempting to set it aside. In the hieroglyphics of the ancient Egyptians the mother is represented by a picture of a vulture. The Egyptians also worshipped a Mother Goddess, who was represented as having a vulture’s head, or else several heads, of which at least one was a vulture’s. This goddess’s name was pronounced Mut. Can the similarity to the sound of our word Mutter [‘mother’] be merely a coincidence? There is, then, some real connection between vulture and mother…”

On p. 2280, Freud makes the pronouncement on Leonardo da Vinci more definitive:

“From this it would appear that Leonardo’s erotic life did really belong to the type of homosexuality whose psychical development we have succeeded in disclosing, and the emergence of the homosexual situation in his phantasy of the vulture would become intelligible to us: for its meaning was exactly what we have already asserted of that type. We should have to translate it thus: ‘It was through this erotic relation with my mother that I became a homosexual.’”

As can be seen in the above passage, Freud also proposed that in a painting with the Virgin Mary and the Christ child, Leonardo also incorporated elements derived from the vulture analogy. It is unsurprising that Freud proclaims that Leonardo Da Vinci abandoned Christianity in his later years:

(Freud, p. 2295): “It does not seem as if the instance of Leonardo could show this view of religious belief to be mistaken. Accusations charging him with unbelief or (what at that time came to the same thing) with apostasy from Christianity were brought against him while he was still alive, and are clearly described in the first biography which Vasari wrote of him, (Müntz, 1899, 292 ff.) In the second (1568) edition of his Vite Vasari omitted these observations. In view of the extraordinary sensitiveness of his age where religious matters were in question, we can understand perfectly why even in his notebooks Leonardo should have refrained from directly stating his attitude to Christianity. In his researches he did not allow himself to be led astray in the slightest degree by the account of the Creation in Holy Writ; he challenged, for example, the possibility of a universal Deluge, and in geology he calculated in terms of hundreds of thousands of years with no more hesitation than men in modern times.

Among his ‘prophecies’ there are some things that would have been bound to offend the sensitive feelings of a Christian believer. Take for example, ‘On the practice of praying to the images of saints’: ‘Men will speak to men that perceive nothing, that have their eyes open and see nothing; they will talk to them and receive no answer; they will implore the grace of those that have ears and hear not; they will kindle lights for one that is blind.’ (After Herzfeld, 1906, 292.)

Or ‘On the mourning on Good Friday’: ‘In every part of Europe great people will weep for the death of a single man who died in the East.’ (Ibid., 297.)

The view has been expressed about Leonardo’s art that he took from the sacred figures the last remnant of their connection with the Church and made them human, so as to represent by their means great and beautiful human emotions. Muther praises him for overcoming the prevailing mood of decadence and for restoring to man his right to sensuality and the joy of living. In the notes that show Leonardo engrossed in fathoming the great riddles of nature there is no lack of passages where he expresses his admiration for the Creator, the ultimate cause of all these noble secrets; but there is nothing which indicates that he wished to maintain any personal relation with this divine power. The reflections in which he has recorded the deep wisdom of his last years of life breathe the resignation of the human being who subjects himself to ‘’Ανάγχη’, to the laws of nature, and who expects no alleviation from the goodness or grace of God. There is scarcely any doubt that Leonardo had prevailed over both dogmatic and personal religion, and had by his work of research removed himself far from the position from which the Christian believer surveys the world.”

One might ponder whether the “the vulture” as the Egyptian “Mut” might coincide with Freud’s source “Muther”, as opposed to “mother”. Seen in this fashion, one might envision, Muther-and Sigmund Freud- devouring the long-deceased Da Vinci, leaving only an unrecognizable atheist remnant in his place.

Freud’s is so extreme in its evidence-free characterizations of Leonardo Da Vinci that one is left to conclude that the 1910 diatribe is nothing more than a ‘hit piece’ on him.

Gallery H

Recall that Freud pronounced of Francesco Melzi:

“As he had chosen them for their beauty and not for their talent, none of them - Cesare da Sesto, Boltraffio, Andrea Salaino, Francesco Melzi and others - became a painter of importance.”

Interestingly, today Francesco Melzi is credited by some with a painting which hangs in the Louvre, and the painting has an interesting background (from https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/1288594 ):

“The Leonardesque painting of “Bacchus”, formerly a “Saint John the Baptist”, in the Musée du Louvre is based on a drawing by the Italian Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci but executed by an unknown follower, perhaps in Leonardo’s workshop. [..]

Some have claimed that the painting could have been done by any of several Lombard painters, Cesare da Sesto, Marco d’Oggiono, Francesco Melzi, or by Cesare Bernazzano. The painting began its career as a “Saint John the Baptist” who is pointing with his right hand off to the right, and with his left hand grasps his thyrsus. Then in the late seventeenth century [After 1683, when it was inventoried at “Saint Jean dans le désert” at Fontainebleau, but before 1693, when it was inventoried at Meudon as a “Bacchus”, with a marginal note that it had formerly been previously inventoried as a “Saint John”. (Freedberg 1982:285, note 16.] it was overpainted and altered, to serve as a “Bacchus”.

The current version of the “overpainted and altered” painting is shown below.

The reference continues:

“The overpainting transformed the image of St. John into one of a lusty pagan, by converting the long-handled cross-like staff to a Bacchic thyrsus and adding an ivy wreath. The fur and wreath in the painting are the legacy of John the Baptist, while the fruit and laurel wreath relate the figure to Bacchus, the Roman god of wine and intoxication.”

The drastic changes in the intent of Da Vinci render an interpretation of the full painting difficult, but here is one possible way of interpreting one prominent feature of the image in its present state. The figure is pointing his right index at an upward angle while his left index finger is pointing downward. In Da Vinci’s mural, The Last Supper, the disciple Thomas, standing adjacent to Jesus, has one finger, his right index finger, pointing upward. In The Way Out substack article, “Looking for a Bright Light? Seeker What’s Your Life Like?” (https://thewayout.substack.com/p/looking-for-a-bright-light-seeker ) a logic pathway is provided which suggests that Leonardo Da Vinci viewed Thomas as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, also called “the Beloved Disciple”. (A book published in 1995 by James H. Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple, is an excellent resource for those interested in this subject.) It can also be understood that the disciple Thomas represents “1”, Peter (and the church) represents “5”, and Christianity through the Holy Trinity representing “3” in the “153 fishes” and the “unbroken net” of the Gospel of John, Chapter 21.

Through John 1:35-45, and later verses, it is possible to deduce that the Beloved Disciple was originally a disciple of John the Baptist.

The disciple Thomas is introduced by name in reference to the story of Jesus traveling to raise Lazarus from the dead. The trip was a dangerous journey, as the disciples expressed their trepidation to Jesus:

John 11:8 The disciples said to Him, “Rabbi, the Jews were just now seeking to stone You, and are You going there again?”

Later, after Jesus explained why the trip was necessary and appropriate, Thomas urged all the disciples to remain courageous and join Jesus on this trip where He performed a miracle.

John 11:16 Thomas therefore, who is called Didymus, said to his fellow disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with Him”

Importantly, the disciples followed the instruction of Thomas.

Charlesworth, among others, points out that the name Didymus means “twin”. ‘Didymus’ also shares similarity, in its word structure, to ‘Daedalus’ of Greek mythology, to whom Leonardo Da Vinci has often been compared (for more on this subject, see again the Way Out substack article “Searching for a Bright Light…”, link above).

Thus, the single fingers on each hand of the original John the Baptist, misrepresented today as “Bacchus”, can be seen as follows. His right index finger signifies Jesus Christ, angled upward because He walked the Earth at the time depicted in the painting and yet was the divine Son of God. John the Baptist’s left index finger pointing downward at the Earth signifies Thomas, the “twin” Didymus and (in my opinion) the Beloved Disciple. The Beloved Disciple is a mortal man, and hence the single finger, which suggests once more the number “1” in reference to John Chapter 21, points toward Earth.

The story of Thomas- represented by the number 1- through his spoken commitment while urging his fellow disciples to join Jesus in journeying to the home of Lazarus, suggests the following phrase: “Where we go one, we go all.”

Gallery I

Returning our attention once more to the “wicked traitor” Anthony Blunt, in reading his chapter on Leonardo Da Vinci, it occurred to me that I had seen many of the very same subjects discussed by John Ruskin – a coincidence, perhaps. Yet there was a most profound difference. Anthony Blunt (via H. Ludwig) credited secular humanism as the driving source of the inspiration Leonardo da Vinci gained from Nature. By contrast, John Ruskin went to great lengths to make clear that he credited God, Divine inspiration, and Christian faith for his own appreciation of Nature.

Anthony Blunt leads into the discussion (p. 28) and provides one example of this overlap in topics:

“As with all Leonardo’s ideas the originality of his conception of the imitation of nature can only be seen in his treatment of specific problems. A very large part of the notes is devoted to scientific observation of facts relevant to the painter.

[..]

His notes on botany, particularly on the growth of trees, are more personal, for before his time men had paid little attention to scientific study of inanimate nature for its own sake.”

Below is an excerpt illustrating John Ruskin’s acute sense of perception on the same topic, from Modern Painters (volumes 1-5 published from 1843-1860) on botany, specifically tree growth (portions from pp. 106-107 with the full passage accessible https://www.guildofstgeorge.org.uk/resources/readings-from-ruskin/of-truth-of-vegetation ):

“It will be best to begin as nature does, with the stems and branches, and then to put the leaves on. And in speaking of trees generally, be it observed, when I say all trees, I mean only those ordinary forest or copse trees of Europe, which are the chief subjects of the landscape painter. I do not mean to include every kind of foliage which by any accident can find its way into a picture, but the ordinary trees of Europe: oak, elm, ash, hazel, willow, birch, beech, poplar, chestnut, pine, mulberry, olive, ilex, carob, and such others. I do not purpose to examine the characteristics of each tree; it will be enough to observe the laws common to all. First, then, neither the stems nor the boughs of any of the above trees taper, except where they fork. Wherever a stem sends off a branch, or a branch a lesser bough, or a lesser bough a bud, the stem of the branch is, on the instant, less in diameter by the exact quantity of the branch or the bough they have sent off, and they remain of the same diameter; or if there be any change, rather increase than diminish until they send off another branch or bough. This law is imperative and without exception; no bough, nor stem, nor twig, ever tapering or becoming narrower towards its extremity by a hair’s-breadth, save where it parts with some portion of its substance at a fork or bud, so that if all the twigs and sprays at the top and sides of the tree, which are, and have been, could be united without loss of space, they would form a round log of at least the diameter of the trunk from which they spring.

But as the trunks of most trees send off twigs and sprays of light under-foliage, of which every individual fibre takes precisely its own thickness of wood from the parent stem, and as many of these drop off, leaving nothing but a small excrescence to record their existence, there is frequently a slight and delicate appearance of tapering caused in the trunk itself; while the same operation takes place much more extensively in the branches; it being natural to almost all trees to send out from their young limbs more wood than they can support; which, as the stem increases, gets contracted at the point of insertion, so as to check the flow of the sap, and then dies and drops off, leaving all along the bough, first on one side, then on another, a series of small excrescences sufficient to account for a degree of tapering, which is yet so very slight that if we select a portion of a branch with no real fork or living bough to divide it or diminish it, the tapering is scarcely to be detected by the eye; and if we select a portion without such evidences of past ramification, there will be found none whatsoever.

But nature takes great care and pains to conceal this uniformity in her boughs. They are perpetually parting with little sprays here and there, which steal away their substance cautiously and where the eye does not perceive the theft, until, a little way above, it feels the loss; and in the upper parts of the tree, the ramifications take place so constantly and delicately, that the effect upon the eye is precisely the same as if the boughs actually tapered, except here and there, where some avaricious one, greedy of substance, runs on for two or three yards without parting with anything, and becomes ungraceful in so doing.

Hence we see that although boughs may and must be represented as actually tapering, they must only be so when they are sending off foliage and sprays, and when they are at such a distance that the particular forks and divisions cannot be evident to the eye; and farther, even in such circumstances, the tapering never can be sudden or rapid. No bough ever, with appearance of smooth tapering, loses more than one tenth of its diameter in a length of ten diameters. Any greater diminution than this must be accounted for by visible ramification, and must take place by steps, at each fork.

And therefore we see at once that the stem of Gaspar Poussin’s tall tree, on the right of the La Riccia, in the National Gallery, is a painting of a carrot or a parsnip, not of the trunk of a tree.

For, being so near that every individual leaf is visible, we should not have seen, in nature, one branch or stem actually tapering. We should have received an impression of graceful diminution; but we should have been able, on examination, to trace it joint by joint, fork by fork, into the thousand minor supports of the leaves. Gaspar Poussin’s stem, on the contrary, only sends off four or five minor branches altogether, and both it and they taper violently, and without showing why or wherefore; without parting with a single twig, without showing one vestige of roughness or excrescence; and leaving, therefore, their unfortunate leaves to hold on as best they may. The latter, however, are clever leaves, and support themselves as swarming bees do, hanging on by each other.”

The artist, Gaspar Poussin, sternly criticized by Ruskin for his carrot-shaped trees happened to be both brother-in-law and student of Nicolas Poussin- who in turn was referenced by Anthony Blunt in the passage above as having documented Leonardo Da Vinci’s notes and adding engravings. Anthony Blunt is credited with later writing a book hailing the work of Nicolas Poussin (https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691253503/nicolas-poussin ).

John Ruskin levels more stinging criticism at Gaspar Poussin’s art in Modern Painters (e.g., p. 247, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29907/29907-h/29907-h.htm#page247 ).

“A man accustomed to the grace and infinity of nature’s foliage, with every vista a cathedral, and every bough a revelation, can scarcely but be angered when (Gaspar) Poussin mocks him with a black round mass of impenetrable paint, diverging into feathers instead of leaves, and supported on a stick instead of a trunk.” (Modern Painters I, Ch. 7)

“It is therefore matter of no little marvel to me, and I conceive that it can scarcely be otherwise to any reflecting person, that throughout the whole range of ancient landscape art, there occurs no instance of the painting of a real rain-cloud, still less of any of the more delicate phenomena characteristic of the region. ‘Storms’ indeed, as the innocent public persist in calling such abuses of nature and abortions of art as the two windy Gaspars in our National Gallery, are common enough; massive concretions of ink and indigo, wrung and twisted very hard, apparently in a vain effort to get some moisture out of them; bearing up courageously and successfully against a wind, whose effects on the trees in the foreground can be accounted for only on the supposition that they are all of the India-rubber species.”

“There is of course more or less accuracy of knowledge and execution combined with this aim at effect, according to the industry and precision of eye possessed by the master, and more or less of beauty in the forms selected, according to his natural taste; but both the beauty and truth are sacrificed unhesitatingly where they interfere with the great effort at deception. Claude had, if it had been cultivated, a fine feeling for beauty of form, and is seldom ungraceful in his foliage; but his picture, when examined with reference to essential truth, is one mass of error from beginning to end. Cuyp, on the other hand, could paint close truth of everything, except ground and water, with decision and success, but he has no sense of beauty. Gaspar Poussin, more ignorant of truth than Claude, and almost as dead to beauty as Cuyp, has yet a perception of the feeling and moral truth of nature which often redeems the picture; but yet in all of them, everything that they can do is done for deception, and nothing for the sake or love of what they are painting.” (Chapter 7, Modern Painters Part 1, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29907/29907-h/29907-h.htm#page76 )

John Ruskin also found significant fault with Nicolas Poussin’s work and compares it unfavorably to the work of William Turner (excerpts from p.144-194 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29907/29907-h/29907-h.htm#page144 ):

“Take for instance, one of the finest landscapes that ancient art has produced—the work of a really great and intellectual mind, the quiet Nicholas Poussin with the traveller washing his feet. The first idea we receive from this picture is that it is evening, and all the light coming from the horizon. Not so. It is full moon, the light coming steep from the left, as is shown by the shadow of the stick on the right-hand pedestal,—(for if the sun were not very high, that shadow could not lose itself half way down, and if it were not lateral, the shadow would slope, instead of being vertical.) Now, ask yourself, and answer candidly, if those black masses of foliage, in which scarcely any form is seen but the outline, be a true representation of trees under noonday sunlight, sloping from the left, bringing out, as it necessarily would do, their masses into golden green, and marking every leaf and bough with sharp shadow and sparkling light. The only truth in the picture is the exact pitch of relief against the sky of both trees and hills, and to this the organization of the hills, the intricacy of the foliage, and everything indicative either of the nature of the light, or the character of the objects, are unhesitatingly sacrificed. So much falsehood does it cost to obtain two apparent truths of tone. Or take, as a still more glaring instance, No. 260 in the Dulwich Gallery, where the trunks of the trees, even of those farthest off, on the left, are as black as paint can make them, and there is not, and cannot be, the slightest increase of force, or any marking whatsoever of distance by color, or any other means, between them and the foreground.

Compare with these, Turner’s treatment of his materials in the Mercury and Argus. He has here his light actually coming from the distance, the sun being nearly in the centre of the picture, and a violent relief of objects against it would be far more justifiable than in Poussin’s case. But this dark relief is used in its full force only with the nearest leaves of the nearest group of foliage overhanging the foreground from the left; and between these and the more distant members of the same group, though only three or four yards separate, distinct aerial perspective and intervening mist and light are shown; while the large tree in the centre, though very dark, as being very near, compared with all the distance, is much diminished in intensity of shade from this nearest group of leaves, and is faint compared with all the foreground. It is true that this tree has not, in consequence, the actual pitch of shade against the sky which it would have in nature; but it has precisely as much as it possibly can have, to leave it the same proportionate relation to the objects near at hand. And it cannot but be evident to the thoughtful reader, that whatever trickery or deception may be the result of a contrary mode of treatment, this is the only scientific or essentially truthful system, and that what it loses in tone it gains in aerial perspective.”

It certainly would seem to be a remarkable coincidence that the painter, Poussin, so harshly criticized by John Ruskin for poorly painting trees, would have drawn the figures for Leonardo Da Vinci’s Treatise on Painting, about which Anthony Blunt specifically praises Leonardo’s insight on the growth of trees.

The sharp criticism of Poussin continues (on p. 159 in the link above) where Ruskin points out false colors in Nicolas Poussin’s artwork.

“Again, in the upper sky of the picture of Nicolas Poussin, before noticed, the clouds are of a very fine clear olive-green, about the same tint as the brightest parts of the trees beneath them. They cannot have altered, (or else the trees must have been painted in gray,) for the hue is harmonious and well united with the rest of the picture, and the blue and white in the centre of the sky are still fresh and pure. Now a green sky in open and illumined distance is very frequent, and very beautiful; but rich olive-green clouds, as far as I am acquainted with nature, are a piece of color in which she is not apt to indulge. You will be puzzled to show me such a thing in the recent works of Turner. Again, take any important group of trees, I do not care whose—Claude’s, Salvator’s, or Poussin’s—with lateral light (that in the Marriage of Isaac and Rebecca, or Gaspar’s sacrifice of Isaac, for instance:) Can it be seriously supposed that those murky browns and melancholy greens are representative of the tints of leaves under full noonday sun? I know that you cannot help looking upon all these pictures as pieces of dark relief against a light wholly proceeding from the distances; but they are nothing of the kind—they are noon and morning effects with full lateral light. Be so kind as to match the color of a leaf in the sun (the darkest you like) as nearly as you can, and bring your matched color and set it beside one of these groups of trees, and take a blade of common grass, and set it beside any part of the fullest light of their foregrounds, and then talk about the truth of color of the old masters!”

“Take, for instance, the street in the centre of the really great landscape of Poussin (great in feeling at least) marked 260 in the Dulwich Gallery. The houses are dead square masses with a light side and a dark side, and black touches for windows. There is no suggestion of anything in any of the spaces, the light wall is dead gray, the dark wall dead gray, and the windows dead black. How differently would nature have treated us. She would have let us see the Indian corn hanging on the walls, and the image of the Virgin at the angles, and the sharp, broken, broad shadows of the tiled eaves, and the deep ribbed tiles with the doves upon them, and the carved Roman capital built into the wall, and the white and blue stripes of the mattresses stuffed out of the windows, and the flapping corners of the mat blinds. All would have been there; not as such, not like the corn, nor blinds, nor tiles, not to be comprehended nor understood, but a confusion of yellow and black spots and strokes, carried far too fine for the eye to follow, microscopic in its minuteness, and filling every atom and part of space with mystery, out of which would have arranged itself the general impression of truth and life.”

Shortly thereafter, Blunt raises another topic allegedly found in the notes of Leonardo Da Vinci which “coincidentally” overlaps with observations centuries later:

(Blunt, p. 29): “But the notes in which the exactness of his observation is most startlingly apparent are those dealing with light and shade and those on aerial perspective. To the former he attaches great importance because without the correct disposition of light and shade a painting will not have the appearance of relief. The details of his treatment of the subject are not relevant here, but one specimen will give an idea of how carefully he observed nature. He noticed that shadows cast by the sun on a white surface are blue, an idea which was not taken up again till the second half of the nineteenth century, when it became one of the fundamental discoveries of Impressionism. [..] In aerial perspective Leonardo appears as a complete innovator. Earlier writers, such as Alberti, were quite unaware that the edges of objects become less clearly defined and the details on them less distinct as they get farther away.”

In Modern Painters, John Ruskin wrote eloquently of shadows and aerial perspective under the heading of “Chiaroscuro” (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29907/29907-h/29907-h.htm#page174 ):

(Ruskin): “Go out some bright sunny day in winter, and look for a tree with a broad trunk, having rather delicate boughs hanging down on the sunny side, near the trunk. Stand four or five yards from it, with your back to the sun. You will find that the boughs between you and the trunk of the tree are very indistinct, that you confound them in places with the trunk itself, and cannot possibly trace one of them from its insertion to its extremity. But the shadows which they cast upon the trunk, you will find clear, dark, and distinct, perfectly traceable through their whole course, except when they are interrupted by the crossing boughs. And if you retire backwards, you will come to a point where you cannot see the intervening boughs at all, or only a fragment of them here and there, but can still see their shadows perfectly plain. Now, this may serve to show you the immense prominence and importance of shadows where there is anything like bright light. They are, in fact, commonly far more conspicuous than the thing which casts them, for being as large as the casting object, and altogether made up of a blackness deeper than the darkest part of the casting object, (while that object is also broken up with positive and reflected lights), their large, broad, unbroken spaces, tell strongly on the eye, especially as all form is rendered partially, often totally invisible within them, and as they are suddenly terminated by the sharpest lines which nature ever shows. For no outline of objects whatsoever is so sharp as the edge of a close shadow. Put your finger over a piece of white paper in the sun, and observe the difference between the softness of the outline of the finger itself and the decision of the edge of the shadow. And note also the excessive gloom of the latter. A piece of black cloth, laid in the light, will not attain one-fourth of the blackness of the paper under the shadow.”

Now, consider: If John Ruskin’s analysis of Artwork was so viciously attacked (as described in the preface of the 1870 book, The True and The Beautiful), why did “the Reviewers” fail to use this (alleged) statement about the blueness of shadows by the great master painter Leonardo Da Vinci himself to counter Ruskin’s arguments?

Consider John Ruskin’s response to a reviewer (Christopher North, called the “Scotch Reviewer” excerpted above) who was highly critical of Ruskin’s analysis, as introduced, in The True and The Beautiful (pp. xviii-xix) as follows:

“The enthusiasm of a man of genius appears to the multitude like madness. The fervor of his imagination and the intensity of his emotions, do, indeed, prevent him at times from perceiving clearly, not only what is for his own interest, but what he would more earnestly deprecate, for the interest of the cause for which he zealously advocates. Thus was it with the “Graduate” when, stung to the quick like Byron, like him, he retorted upon the “Scotch Reviewer”.

(Ruskin): “Writers like the present critic of Blackwood’s Magazine deserve the respect due honest, hopeless, helpless imbecility. There is something exalted in the innocence of their feeblemindedness; one cannot suspect them of partiality, for it implies feeling; nor of prejudice, for it implies some previous acquaintance with their subject. I do not know that even in this age of charlatanry, I could point to a more barefaced instance of imposture on the simplicity of the public, than the insertion of these pieces of criticism in a respectable periodical. We are not insulted with opinions on music from persons ignorant of its notes; nor with treatises on philology by persons unacquainted with the alphabet; but here is page after page of criticism, which one may read from end to end, looking for something which the authors know, and finding nothing. Not his own language, for he has to look in his dictionary, by his own admission, for a word (chrysoprase) occurring in one of the most important chapters of the Bible; not the commonest traditions of the schools, for he does not know why Poussin was called ‘learned,’ not the most simple canons of art…”

Ruskin continues for several more sentences and finally ends by stating that the critic (Christopher North) has “the capacities of a buffoon”.

Consider that one of John Ruskin’s strongest convictions is the Reviewer is unqualified to render judgment on Ruskin’s views because the Reviewer is not himself an artist.

How is it that neither the Reviewer (Christopher North, labeled as ‘buffoon’) nor any other of the many critics of John Ruskin laid into him by quoting the words of Leonardo, which directly contradicted Ruskin on the blackness (versus blueness) of shadow on a white surface?

Consider another one of Anthony Blunt’s characterizations of Leonardo’s observations, speaking first of earlier painters:

(Blunt): “They seem not even to have noticed or not to have been interested in the fact that hills are blue in the distance, and, though some painters before Leonardo, or independent contemporaries like Perugino, hint in their paintings at the possibilities of this kind of perspective, it is only in a very vague way. Leonardo was the first to carry out a really systematic study of the subject…”

Anyone even vaguely acquainted with John Ruskin associates him with his observation of “Blue hills”. To name just one example, John Ruskin on the color of distant hills (at https://www.gutenberg.org/files/31623/31623-h/31623-h.htm , in a footnote of a preface annotated “Denmark Hill, March, 1856”)

“Persons unacquainted with hill scenery are apt to forget that the sky of the mountains is often close to the spectator. A black thundercloud may literally be dashing itself in his face, while the blue hills seen through its rents may be thirty miles away. Generally speaking, we do not enough understand the nearness of many clouds, even in level countries, as compared with the land horizon.”

In another passage, Anthony Blunt emphasizes Leonardo’s attention to precision in being true to Nature but then states that Leonardo makes a strange recommendation (p. 30):

(Blunt): “Leonardo’s belief in the exact imitation of nature is even greater than Alberti’s. He commonly sets up this exactness as the final test of painting, as for instance, when he says:’ That painting is the most to be praised which agrees most exactly with the thing imitated’; and though in other passages his opinion on this seems to differ he certainly considers it of great importance, since he recommends the painter always carry a mirror and to see whether the reflection in it agrees exactly with his painting.’…”

The suggestion a mirror is so bizarre it warrants the inclusion of image of the page. How large a mirror would a painter carry? How would such a mirror be arranged? If a large mirror were placed adjacent to the painting, with the desired subject located behind the painter, the left-right-orientation of the image would be reversed from what the painter would see if looking at it straight on. How many landscape painters today follow this advice by carrying a mirror with them when painting? Does the carrying of a mirror by the painter truly sound like a recommendation made by Leonardo Da Vinci?

John Ruskin also exhorts the painter to remain accurate in depicting landscape, but in stark contrast to Blunt he invokes religious faith as the source of appreciation and comprehension of Nature.

Ruskin (p. 264, The True and the Beautiful) expounds:

“The cause of evil lies, I believe, deep-seated in the system of ancient landscape art; it consists, in a word, in the painter’s taking upon him to modify God’s works at his pleasure. Casting the shadow of himself on all he sees, constituting himself arbiter where it is honor to be a disciple, and exhibiting his ingenuity by the attainment of combinations whose highest praise is that they are impossible.”

Yet another passage exhibits a remarkable similarity, but in this instance, Ruskin is quoting an earlier reference.

Blunt: “The young artist has need of a natural talent, whereas, according to Leonardo, the student of mathematics can learn by sheer application.”

Ruskin (p. 284, T&B): “The moment any man begins to talk about rules, in whatsoever art, you may know him for a second-rate man; and if he talks about them much, he is third-rate, or not an artist at all. To this rule, there is no exception in any art; but it is perhaps to be better illustrated in the art of music than in that of painting. I fell by chance the other day upon a work by De Stendhal’s, “Vies de Hadyn, de Mozart, et de Metastase,” fuller of common sense than any book I ever read on the arts; though I see by the slight references made occasionally to painting, that the author’s knowledge therein is warped and limited by the elements of general teaching in the schools around him; and I have not yet, therefore, looked at what he has separately written on painting. But one or two passages out of this book on music are closely to our present purpose.

(Ruskin quoting Stendhal): ‘Counterpoint is related to mathematics; a fool, with patience, becomes a respectable savant in that; but for the part of genius, melody, it has no rules. No art is so utterly despised of precepts for the production of the beautiful. So much the better for it and for us…’”

For context, De Stendhal, a pseudonym for Marie-Henri Beyle (1783-1842), was mentioned in Twilight of the Idols, attributed to Friedrich Nietzsche, who succinctly compared him to Fyodor Dostoyevsky:

(Nietzsche, Section 45): “Dostoyevsky’s testimony is of importance – Dostoyevsky who, incidentally, was the only psychologist from whom I had anything to learn: he belongs to the happiest windfalls of my life, happier even than the discovery of Stendhal. This profound man, who was ten times right for thinking the superficial Germans low, found the Siberian convicts among whom he lived for several years, - those thoroughly hopeless criminals for whom no road back to society stood open- very different from what he expected, - that is to say, carved from about the best, hardest, and most valuable material grown on Russian soil.”

Why did the severe critics of John Ruskin fail to excoriate Ruskin for his apparent ignorance of Leonardo’s own-allegedly prior-very similar statements regarding mathematics, as opposed to his citation of Stendhal’s instead? For that matter, how is it that even Stendhal’s critics-or Nietzsche- seemingly failed to notice that his opinion on mathematics was unoriginal and merely a recycled form of Leonardo’s observation and set the record straight?

It occurred to me that some reviewers may not have been familiar with Leonardo’s notes due to a language barrier. But the electronic records-if they are to be believed- preserving published editions of Treatise on Painting, presumably scanned-in, suggest that an English translation were available by 1796 (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:A_treatise_on_painting_(IA_treatisepainting00leon).pdf&page=9 and https://archive.org/details/treatisepainting00leon/page/n8/mode/1up ) and even earlier.

Anthony Blunt continues by citing Leonardo expressing examples of what an artist might use as a subject (p. 37):

“The painter is, therefore, not merely a scientist who copies nature, he is also a creator; he can draw ‘not only the works of nature, but infinitely more than those which nature provides’, and he excels nature ‘by the invention (fintione) of endless forms of animals and herbs, plants and landscapes. In another chapter Leonardo gives examples of the kinds of things which the artist can invent - monsters, unknown landscapes, mountains, plains, and so on.”

By contrast, John Ruskin heaps high praise upon Leonardo for his choice of subject matter which was somehow omitted in the list authored by the Communist who betrayed his nation, Anthony Blunt. Recall (repeated for emphasis, from above):

(Ruskin) “Greatness in style consists then: first, in the choice of habitual subjects of thought which involve wide interest and profound passions. The style is greater or less than in exact proportion to the nobleness of the interests and passions of the subject. The habitual choice of sacred subjects, such as the Nativity, the Transfiguration, Crucifixion (if the choice be sincere), implies that the painter has a natural disposition to dwell on the highest thoughts of which humanity is capable; it constitutes him so far forth a painter of the highest order, as for instance, Leonardo, in his painting of the Last Supper.”

Gallery J

The idea that Leonardo would describe painting “monsters” surprised me, so I was able to search the electronic file of Treatise on Painting and found the abovementioned English translation with the publication date of 1796.

The references in that electronic file refer to the same year (1651) and location (Paris) matches the description of Anthony Blunt. (see https://archive.org/details/treatisepainting00leon/page/26/mode/1up ).

p. 26: “The last of Leonardo’s treatises which we shall mention, is that which we here offer to the reader, upon Painting. Vasari informs us, that a painter of Milan travelling through Florence, shewed him this work, and promised him to get it printed at Rome ; but he failed of his word, and left the honour of first publishing this inimitable piece to the French. It was in the year 1651, that an Italian edition of it appeared in Paris; all imaginable care having been first taken to send it into the world both correct and compleat.”

Sure enough, on page 145 (https://archive.org/details/treatisepainting00leon/page/145/mode/1up ), it seems Leonardo explains how to “design an imaginary serpent”, including among other absurdities “the eye-brows of a lion” and “the temples of a cock”.

p. 145: (“Leonardo”) “…it follows, that to design any imaginary animal, you must give it the parts and members of a real one: for instance, if you would have it appear like a serpent, let it have the head of a mastiff, the eyes of a cat, the ears of a porcupine, the snout of a grey-hound, the eye-brows of a lion, the temples of a cock, and the neck of a tortoise.

Does this sound like a sentence Leonardo da Vinci would compose? Is it possible the lines from Treatise on Painting might be have been “fabricated” and used to mock the description of the beast described in the Bible, as follows?

Revelation 13:1-2 …And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads […] And the beast I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority.

Note that Satan is represented both by a serpent, allegedly described by Da Vinci, and by the beast described in the Book of Revelation. Some might assert this correspondence is merely a “coincidence”.

Consulting several other passages, it becomes clear that Anthony Blunt’s description matches the theme of the text in the alleged 1796 edition of Treatise on Painting in regard to faith, as the following two excerpts illustrate. First, nature is subtly associated with religion (as with the Greek god Pan):

p. 143: (suggests nature as a religion, as in the Greek god, Pan): “Figures of this kind, therefore, must be touched very slightly; as if the painter intended no more than an unfinished sketch : to do otherwise would be to go contrary to nature, whose practice ought ever to be religiously followed.

Second, angels are relegated to the status of “historical references” by the faithful, rather than faith itself:

p. 49: (relegates angles to history rather than current religious symbols) “In the rest of the front towards the top, you may paint landskips, with trees, proportionate to the figures, or angels, if the history require it, or birds, or barely the heavens with clouds, and the like incidents.”

Indeed, it seems that the accumulation of material over the entirety of the book Anthony Blunt’s description is generally in accordance with the 1796 edition of the text. Even the strange commentary by Anthony Blunt about landscape painters using a mirror is present.

On page 139-140, words attributed to Leonardo read as follows:

“If, after imitating anything from the life, and to see how the copy approaches the original, take a mirror, and presenting it to the natural object, survey the image exhibited therein, and compare it very carefully with your painting. [..] It is evident that if you do but manage them with the necessary art and address, your painting will likewise appear as a natural object, represented in a large mirror. From the mirror you will learn the brights and obscures of every object, and among your colours you will find some brighter than the most enlightened part of your model, as on the contrary, others more obscure than the deepest of it’s shadows; so that your painting have all the perfection whereof it is capable, the object it represents must appear perfectly the same as it would, were it exhibited in a mirror: this, however, being allowed, that the latter be only viewed with one eye, for the reason already delivered in our 48th page.”

The earlier passage on page 48 reads:

“If you only make use of one eye, as S, the object will intercept the whole extent of R because the pyramid of visual rays, issuing from a point, has the first body F for it’s base; by which means the second R, of the same size, is entirely hidden.”

The figure referenced in this sentence is apparently not included in the digital copy at the above link, but the language is suggestive of the “Eye of Providence” (https://gwmemorial.org/blogs/news/the-eye-of-providence )

“The Eye of Providence is a symbol recognized by Freemasons everywhere as a beautiful representation of the watchful care of the Supreme Architect.”

A section near the end of the (alleged) 1796 edition of Treatise on Painting is striking in that four pages (pp. 185-189) are devoted to drapery, including a paragraph on the very last page of the book. Three plates are also included as examples.

Why might this subject be so prominently discussed, given the exceedingly broad range of topics covered throughout the remainder of the text? Once more, the answer is suggested through a reference to John Ruskin’s Modern Painters.

While John Ruskin emphasized the importance of being truthful to nature in landscape painting, he also emphasized the importance of relation. Ruskin composed a passage with an example drawn from his Christian perspective to illustrate his point, which happened to use drapery as less relevant than the subject of the artwork. (from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29907/29907-h/29907-h.htm#page062 ):

(Ruskin): “A truth which may be of great interest, when an object is viewed by itself, may be objectionable when it is viewed in relation to other objects. Thus if we were painting a piece of drapery as our whole subject, it would be proper to give in it every source of entertainment, which particular truths could supply, to give it varied color and delicate texture; but if we paint this same piece of drapery, as part of the dress of a Madonna, all these ideas of richness or texture become thoroughly contemptible, and unfit to occupy the mind at the same moment with the idea of the Virgin. The conception of drapery is then to be suggested by the simplest and slightest means possible, and all notions of texture and detail are to be rejected with utter reprobation; but this, observe, is not because they are particular or general or anything else, with respect to the drapery itself, but because they draw the attention to the dress instead of the saint, and disturb and degrade the imagination and the feelings; hence we ought to give the conception of the drapery in the most unobtrusive way possible, by rendering those essential qualities distinctly, which are necessary to the very existence of drapery, and not one more.”

If one takes the position that Treatise on Painting was written by an anti-Christian cabal decades after Ruskin had published his volumes of Modern Painters, the long and tedious passage about drapery in the former is easy to explain. The cabal of ghost-writers intended to mock Ruskin’s example and instead promote the idea that the Madonna deserved treatment no more special than one would dedicate to the folds of drapery.

As a final and by far the most telling example, the very last paragraph of the (alleged) 1796 edition of Treatise on Painting is curious in that it includes an abrupt change of subject away from “drapery” on the very last page of the text.

(“Leonardo”, ending paragraph): “From the sixth proposition of our treatise of perspective, it appears, that the horizon will be seen exhibited as in a mirror, on that side of a water opposite to the horizon and to the eye. An instance of this you have in the adjacent figure, where the horizon F is opposed to the side B C, and that side, at the same time, opposed to the eye. Let the painter, therefore, who would represent any wide extent of water, consider that this element has no other colour, whether bright or obscure, but what it receives from the brightness or obscurity of the place, wherein it is found ; intermingled with the colours of such other objects, as it is encompassed withal.”

Upon close observation the accompanying drawing on the page opposite (labeled Plate 27 here - https://archive.org/details/treatisepainting00leon/page/n263/mode/1up included with the archive, for reference), it would appear that the water near the B-C region described does not act as a mirror. Rather the reflection of the foliage and hill marked “F” in the distance is omitted from the reflection.

Why then, would the passage about the mirror and its position “opposite to the horizon” be included? One possibility is that a vertical, rather than horizontal, mirror could be “opposite” to the horizon. By copying the image, mirroring it vertically, and placing the mirrored image adjacent to the original, the likely explanation for the final paragraph becomes apparent.

First consider the full mirrored image:

Now, using higher pixel resolution, regard the lower region only:

And finally, take a cloe look at the lower central region of the mirrored image:

The symmetric figure in the lower-center portion of the combined original and mirrored image resembles depictions of Baal or Moloch (sometimes called Molech). Note also that the lower center portion of the mirrored combination image appears to show two pyramids- a small one in the foreground and a larger one behind it. The larger pyramid appears to have projections on each side (due to the imposed symmetry) which could be interpreted as wings.

For a comparison to other depictions of this idol, one may consult (per https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/11/08/the-vatican-places-giant-statue-of-molech-at-colosseum-entrance/ ) a description and picture of Molech placed in recent years at the entrance to the Roman Colosseum.

A second example can be seen in a painting by John Singer Sargent housed at the Boston Public Library (at https://www.jssgallery.org/Paintings/BPL/Pagan_Gods_Moloch.htm ).

Traditionally, the very last act of a painter completing a work is to add a signature. The final paragraph of the (alleged) 1796 edition of Treatise on Painting clearly serves an analogous purpose. Those who assembled the Treatise on Painting had the goals of (1) falsely making it appear as though Leonardo was inspired by secular humanism rather than Christian faith, (2) falsely making it appear as though many of John Ruskin’s original, insightful, and Christianity-inspired writings had been observed and documented previously. This single work diminished the intellectual contribution of both men and, more importantly, struck a blow against Christianity as a primary source of the development of Western Civilization. The anti-Christian “signature” with the image of Baal/Moloch/Molech makes perfect sense, once its presence is illuminated.

Gallery K

There are even more topics which correspond remarkably closely between John Ruskin’s Modern Painters and what Anthony Blunt included in his summary of the Treatise on Painting attributed to Leonardo da Vinci. Anyone with the time to delve into the two texts will quickly come to understand this. Given that Anthony Blunt referred only to an obscure and undated German reference, it is plausible that all of the dozens of editions of the Treatise on Painting were fabricated sometime after 1956. The sheer number of editions may have served as a deterrent to anyone who dare suggests that they are all fabrications.

It is my view that ghost-writers fabricated versions Treatise on Painting decades after John Ruskin wrote his series of volumes, including Modern Painters. Given the obvious character assassination of Leonardo da Vinci by Sigmund Freud in 1910, but lack of a formal reference to Treatise on Painting, it is likely that false attribution of the document to Leonardo da Vinci began sometime after John Ruskin’s death in 1900. This date would correspond closely to the time of the publication of the French translation of John Ruskin’s Sesame and Lilies (a “translation with commentary” falsely attributed to Marcel Proust, as described in “Learn to Decode, Part 4: Following the Advice of John Ruskin” at https://thewayout.substack.com/p/learn-to-decode-part-4-following ).

Even in other chapters of Anthony Blunt’s Artistic Theory in Italy 1450-1600, it is clear that one aim of the book is to undermine John Ruskin. One very important example will be described near the conclusion of this article because it has several other implications. A second instance occurs on pp. 111-112, as follows:

(Blunt): “…Gilio da Fabriano, for instance, in his dialogue Degli Errori de Pittori admits that it would not be wrong to make the number of Pharisees present at a given scene greater of smaller than it really was, or to make the servants of Pilate or Herod handsomer or better dressed than they may actually have been (adding a reference to the dialogue mentioned).”

John Ruskin authored a short passage which brilliantly addressed the same principle regarding the accuracy of the number of individuals and their dress and appearance in Biblical scenes, reaching the opposite conclusion. Unsurprisingly, Ruskin used a much different example from the Gospel of John, Chapter 21 (from Modern Painters, Vol. 3, Ch. IV, para. 16-17 at https://www.gutenberg.org/files/38923/38923-h/38923-h.htm )

(Ruskin) “I suppose there is no event in the whole life of Christ to which, in hours of doubt or fear, men turn with more anxious thirst to knew the close facts of it, or with more earnest and passionate dwelling upon every syllable of its recorded narrative, than Christ’s showing Himself to his disciples at the lake of Galilee. There is something preeminently open, natural, full fronting our disbelief in this manifestation. The others, recorded after the resurrection, were sudden, phantom-like, occurring to men in profound sorrow and wearied agitation of heart; not, it might seem, safe judges of what they saw. But the agitation was now over. They had gone back to their daily work, thinking still their business lay net-wards, unmeshed from the literal rope and drag. “Simon Peter saith unto them, ‘I go a fishing,’ They say unto him, ‘We also go with thee,’” True words enough, and having far echo beyond those Galilean hills. That night they caught nothing; but when the morning came, in the clear light of it, behold a figure stood on the shore. They were not thinking of anything but their fruitless hauls. They had no guess who it was. It asked them simply if they had caught anything. They said no. And it tells them to cast yet again. And John shades his eyes from the morning sun with his hand, to look who it is; and though the glinting of the sea, too, dazzles him, he makes out who it is, at last; and poor Simon, not to be outrun this time, tightens, his fisher’s coat about him, and dashes in, over the nets. One would have liked to see him swim those hundred yards, and stagger to his knees on the beach.

Well, the others get to the beach, too, in time, in such slow way as men in general do get, in this world, to its true shore, much impeded by that wonderful “dragging the net with fishes;” but they get there—seven of them in all;—first the Denier, and then the slowest believer, and then the quickest believer, and then the two throne-seekers, and two more, we know not who.

They sit down on the shore face to face with Him, and eat their broiled fish as He bids. And then, to Peter, all dripping still, shivering, and amazed, staring at Christ in the sun, on the other side of the coal fire,—thinking a little, perhaps, of what happened by another coal fire, when it was colder, and having had no word once changed with him by his Master since that look of His,—to him, so amazed, comes the question, “Simon, lovest thou me?” Try to feel that a little, and think of it till it is true to you; and then, take up that infinite monstrosity and hypocrisy—Raphael’s cartoon of the Charge to Peter. Note, first, the bold fallacy—the putting all the Apostles there, a mere lie to serve the Papal heresy of the Petric supremacy, by putting them all in the background while Peter receives the charge, and making them all witnesses to it. Note the handsomely curled hair and neatly tied sandals of the men who had been out all night in the sea-mists and on the slimy decks. Note their convenient dresses for going a-fishing, with trains that lie a yard along the ground, and goodly fringes,—all made to match, an apostolic fishing costume. Note how Peter especially (whose chief glory was in his wet coat girt about him and naked limbs) is enveloped in folds and fringes, so as to kneel and hold his keys with grace. No fire of coals at all, nor lonely mountain shore, but a pleasant Italian landscape, full of villas and churches, and a flock of sheep to be pointed at; and the whole group of Apostles, not round Christ, as they would have been naturally, but straggling away in a line, that they may all be shown.

The simple truth is, that the moment we look at the picture we feel our belief of the whole thing taken away. There is, visibly, no possibility of that group ever having existed, in any place, or on any occasion. It is all a mere mythic absurdity, and faded concoction of fringes, muscular arms, and curly heads of Greek philosophers.

Now, the evil consequences of the acceptance of this kind of religious idealism for true, were instant and manifold. So far as it was received and trusted in by thoughtful persons, it only served to chill all the conceptions of sacred history which they might otherwise have obtained. Whatever they could have fancied for themselves about the wild, strange, infinitely stern, infinitely tender, infinitely varied veracities of the life of Christ, was blotted out by the vapid fineries of Raphael; the rough Galilean pilot, the orderly custom receiver, and all the questioning wonder and fire of uneducated apostleship, were obscured under an antique mask of philosophical faces and long robes. The feeble, subtle, suffering, ceaseless energy and humiliation of St. Paul were confused with an idea of a meditative Hercules leaning on a sweeping sword; and the mighty presences of Moses and Elias were softened by introductions of delicate grace, adopted from dancing nymphs and rising Auroras.

Now, no vigorously minded religious person could possibly receive pleasure or help from such art as this; and the necessary result was the instant rejection of it by the healthy religion of the world. Raphael ministered, with applause, to the impious luxury of the Vatican, but was trampled under foot at once by every believing and advancing Christian of his own and subsequent times; and thenceforward pure Christianity and “high art” took separate roads, and fared on, as best they might, independently of each other.”

Given the prior discussion, one may infer that Anthony Blunt’s reference to the acceptance of an “incorrect number of Pharisees” and false dress and appearance of “the servants of Pilate and Herod” is surely a rejoinder to John Ruskin’s blistering critique of the painter Raphael and benefactors at the Vatican who commissioned the work. Ruskin’s charges seem to be leveled at Pope Leo X, the son of Lorenzo de’ Medici and Clarice Orsini, as he was the head of the Catholic Church and leader of the Papal States from 1513-1521. Pope Leo X implemented the practice of “selling indulgences” in 1515, which was a factor in Martin Luther publishing his 95 Theses which sparked the Protestant Reformation. Incidentally, Leonardo da Vinci died during the papacy of Leo X in 1519 at the age of 67.

Blunt’s reference is available in an English translation titled Dialogue on the Errors and Abuses of Painters. While the speaker named by Blunt does allow for a broad acceptance of misrepresentation of numbers, dress, and appearance, the specific reference to Pharisees, Herod and Pilate is not present. Those examples originate from the book attributed to Blunt.

Moreover, there are at least three reasons-apart from the fact that Anthony Blunt used it as a source- to suspect that Dialogue on the Errors and Abuses of Painters itself is an inauthentic reference. Time and space does not permit a full exploration of this prospect. But consider: (1) There are inconsistencies with the alleged dates of publication and with the status of whether was a Fabriano a “city” at the time of publication as described in the text. Both matters are noted in the translation. (2) One member of the dialogue is named “Francesco Santi, a man of letters and the master of the mills”. Given that the poet William Blake (1757-1828) described “dark, satanic mills” and that “Santi” might be wordplay on “Satan”, it is conceivable that the character is not a real person. (3) The name of the location- Fabriano, which is real-happens to be a conjunction of “fabrication” and “Fabian”.

It is fitting that Anthony Blunt promoted this disgraceful anti-Christian falsehood and was instrumental in stripping proper credit away from John Ruskin-and by extension, away from England. Clearly, however, to pull off such a sophisticated hoax requires much more than the “Cambridge 5”. Perhaps the “Cambridge 5,000” or perhaps the “Cambridge 5 times 5,000” might come closer, but even 25,000 is likely to be a gross underestimation. It would require much more than simply “fabricating” the work itself. An entire history of Treatise on Painting would need to be contrived and “established as truth”. Control of both the most prestigious centers of academia and the most influential media outlets would be required. Large resources were indeed available via the Marxist organization which recruited Anthony Blunt, Communist International (Comintern). Bearing in mind that the predecessor to Comintern successfully overthrew the Russian government in the Bolshevik Revolution, the construction of a false work by Da Vinci and its corresponding fake history was surely achievable.

However, it would be a mistake to limit the possible perpetrators only to those who describe themselves as “Communists”. If one reads between the lines of the thinly disguised absurd mention “socks with sandals” by Patrick McCaughey, it becomes clear that the allegiance of Anthony Blunt was not the Soviet Union but rather was of “Roman” origins (see https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/curiosities/did-ancient-romans-wear-socks-to-sandals/amp/ ).

“In 2010, researchers discovered 14 military graves in North Yorkshire (Britain), in which next to the bodies of the buried Romans were the remains of sandals, including preserved fibers among rust from nails from sandals. This proves that the ancient Romans could wear socks along with sandals, and thus extravagant fashion appeared much earlier than we think.

Of course, this style of clothing was not shocking at the time. Autumn in Britain can be really cold and unpleasant, and the Romans were used to walking in sandals looking for all the ways not to feel cold. Socks were certainly a good idea.”

It would seem that those who placed Anthony Blunt in a position to control the history of Western Civilization intend to impose the “Roman” Master-Slave system, which pre-dates the birth of Christ, upon the world. The labels of Fascism and Communism both apply to such a system, as anyone who has experienced either will attest. In fact, it would be true to the pattern if self-described Fascists pretended to fight self-described Communists while both groups plotted together to eliminate Christianity. A frank assessment of the present condition of the world is that those who intend to reestablish the “Roman” master-slave system have made considerable progress in their endeavor which continues today, long after the publication of Anthony Blunt’s book in 1940.

The aforementioned The Way Out substack article “Decode, Part 4…” might one day lead to a process of setting the record straight, especially with respect to reestablishing the genius of John Ruskin, but so far that has-at best-been slow to develop. The fact that Anthony Blunt of the “Cambridge 5” was involved in Ruskin’s diminishment of credit adds a new element, given that the intelligence community of the Soviet Union was intimately familiar with Blunt and the other members of the Cambridge Five. With the restoration of Christian values in Russia after the decades-long scourge of Communism, perhaps Moscow might be willing to reveal more of the activities and contacts of Anthony Blunt from decades ago. This is not a prediction but is merely a statement of what is possible. If it works out this way, perhaps the released information might complement the analysis of the false attribution and backdated publication date of Treatise on Painting and restore rightful credit to John Ruskin-and by extension, to England- for his original contribution to Western Civilization inspired by his Christian faith. This step would be viewed as a welcome diplomatic gesture, at least by England’s Christian citizens.

Gallery L

Let us return now -after our excursion involving Anthony Blunt, Leonardo Da Vinci, Sigmund Freud and John Ruskin- to the matter of Patrick McCaughey’s memoir The Bright Shapes and the True Names. Patrick McCaughey had previously lived for a period of time in the United States before he became the museum director who brought the Mapplethorpe Exhibit to Hartford, CT. For example, he spent time at Harvard in the mid-1980’s (p. 261):

(Patrick McCaughey)“I joined the department of Fine Arts newly lodged in James Stirling’s Sackler Museum and taught in the Fogg. My colleagues –T.J. Clark, James Ackermann, Oleg Grabar, Seymour Sive, Konrad Oberhuber, Henri Zerner, to mention only a few of the illuminati (McCaughey’s emphasis) - were among the most eminent art historians in the world.”

He goes on to mention that (p. 267):

“In the dusty upper floors of the Boston Public Library I found (John Singer) Sargent’s once feted, now neglected, murals on the triumph of religion. [..] The bright shapes illumined me inwardly…”

But it was in Patrick McCaughey’s description of an earlier stint in the United States where another apparent “typo” appears- the third such “error” identified in this article.

In Chapter 7, titled “The Great Awakening: New York 1969-71 (pp. 104- 128), Patrick McCaughey discusses his experiences after having “won a Harkness Fellowship” which allowed him to spend time in New York City “attached to the Institute of Fine Arts”. There, he was able to interact with many artists and art critics associated with the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) and the “New York School” art movement.

On p. 113, he states the following:

“The most stimulating intellectual experience I had in New York was with Clement Greenberg and his circle. Clem was a stickler for manners. The fact that, when I met him in Melbourne, I called him ‘Mr. Greenberg’ – he was after all thirty-five years older than me- won me a modest brownie point. ‘Call me Clem and come and see me in New York,’ he said as I dropped him at the airport. Clem had lived in a beautiful apartment on Central Park West. He would sit on a small settee under a Morris Louis stripe painting that he had turned horizontal. When I first visited the apartment in 1969, it was filled with the most marvelous works: a large blocky Hoffman, one of Robert Motherwell’s Je’taime paintings, a big David Smith from the Voltri group; Kenneth Noland and Jules Olitski were hung in abundance through the low-slung room.”

The “typo” is question regards the title of Robert Motherwell’s series of paintings titled with the French phrase, which should be Je T’aime, meaning ‘I love you’ in English, rather than “Je’taime”. Technically, the ‘T’ should be capitalized since it is part of the title, though it is left as lower case in some references. But an unambiguous “typo” is the misplacement of the apostrophe. McCaughey placed it between the ‘e’ and the ‘t’, but It should be placed one character later, between the ‘t’ and the ‘a’. Before delving into the significance of this seemingly minor discrepancy, it is necessary to give some background on the painter whose full name is Robert Burns Motherwell III.

Unlike many “starving artists”, Robert Burns Motherwell III was born into a family of wealth and privilege (see e.g., https://dedalusfoundation.org/robert-motherwell/artist-timeline/early-life-and-education/ ). He was the “son of an executive with the Federal Reserve Bank”. His background and accomplishments are outlined in this article named for the organization he founded (https://brooklynrail.org/2021/12/artonic/The-Dedalus-Foundation/ , emphasis added):

“The Dedalus Foundation” By Phyllis Tuchman Dec/Jan 21–22

“Robert Motherwell was a multi-hyphenate artist. He’s entered art history books as the youngest and best educated of the first wave of Abstract Expressionists. But Motherwell also enjoyed a significant career as the editor of the “Documents of Modern Art” series, among other publications, and as a Hunter College professor. He was comfortable wielding paint brushes and spatulas, as well as tapping typewriter keys and proofreading manuscripts. If he had never created masterworks such as The Homely Protestant (1948), or the “Elegy to the Spanish Republic” series, or the “Beside the Sea” works on paper, he still would be remembered today for his stature as a New York intellectual.

Motherwell’s oeuvre occupies a unique position. During the early 1940s, as he embarked on a career as an artist, Surrealism continued to dominate attention. By the end of his life—he died in July 1991—Conceptualism was as strong as it ever had been. His own work lies between these two poles. For five decades, he relied on both his fertile imagination as well as his intellectual acumen. Today, in addition to his tendencies as an Abstract Expressionist, he is also associated with Color Field painting, a movement dominated by his (one-time) wife, Helen Frankenthaler.

Though Motherwell had a privileged childhood, he lived in so many different places, he could have been mistaken for an army brat rather than the son of an executive with the Federal Reserve Bank. Three years after he was born in January 1915 in Washington State, his peripatetic family moved from Aberdeen to Seattle and then, to San Francisco, Salt Lake City, and Los Angeles, before returning to San Francisco in 1927. Summers always were spent along the coast of Washington. There, when Motherwell was 11, a painter who was a family friend encouraged the preteen to make art. Obviously a quick learner, a few months later, he was one of two students awarded a scholarship to Otis Art Institute in Los Angeles. Unfortunately, because his parents were not supportive and his teachers felt he was too young for the life drawing classes, he attended classes there for only a short time.

[..]

Graduating at the head of his high school class, Motherwell enrolled at Stanford University. During his junior year, he switched his major from English literature to philosophy. Decades later, MoMA curator William S. Rubin often said that the Abstract Expressionists knew little more than the equivalent of night school metaphysics. Motherwell was conversant in the real thing.

Occasionally, Motherwell sounds like a character out of novels by Edith Wharton and Henry James rather than a contemporary of J.D. Salinger and John Cheever. During the summer of 1935, his father took him and his younger sister on a grand tour of Europe, where they visited seven countries. While abroad, he read James Joyce’s Ulysses for the first time, a book that would have a lasting impact. That autumn, back in Palo Alto, the college student attended a cocktail party at the home of collectors Michael and Sarah Stein, and became enthralled by the paintings of Henri Matisse that filled the Steins’ home.

[..]

Most accounts of well-known figures stress their mature life rather than their formative years. This one has summarily introduced Motherwell’s early experiences because they relate to a number of programs run by the foundation that he initiated in 1981 at the age of 66. Originally called the Motherwell Foundation, the Dedalus Foundation—renamed in 1991 shortly before the artist died, for the protagonist in James Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man and Ulysses—has an unusually wide-ranging program. Fostering scholarship and art making also involves community outreach. For example, from 2013 until the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, Dedalus ran workshops at its Brooklyn location that were available to kids and teens as well as adults. As in all the foundation’s programs, encouragement, guidance, and feedback played pivotal roles.

[..]

With just its name, the Dedalus Foundation reminds us not only of artist Robert Motherwell, but of James Joyce and the legacy of one of the leading figures of 20th century literature. This is the backdrop against which we should view the artist’s studio records, correspondence, gallery records, and such that are available to researchers in the foundation’s archives. It’s a broader context than merely referring to Abstract Expressionism or Color Field painting. Instead of considering parts of 50 years, we’re meant to view a bigger picture that spans a century.

Robert Motherwell wanted his foundation to support scholarship that addressed modern art in all of its guises, not just his own individual role in its ongoing story. As such, the Dedalus Foundation operates on many different fronts. Both the visual and the verbal constantly cross paths as it pursues its mission.”

The fact that Robert Burns Motherwell III named his organization after a character in James Joyce’s Ulysses naturally piqued my interest. In “Learn to Decode 3: An Act of Perfect Contrition” (see https://thewayout.substack.com/p/learn-to-decode-part-3-an-act-of ), the novel Ulysses and its suggestive language surrounding the “General Slocum disaster” of 15 June 1904. The “disaster” led to the death of approximately 1,000 German-American Christian women and children. As the title of The Way Out article suggests, passages from the novel Ulysses (set one day later, on 16 June 1904) suggest that the “disaster” was not an accident but was instead “contrived”. It would be better termed an “act of terrorism” rather than a “disaster”. The celebrated novel’s connection to the combination of British imperialists, the Fabian movement, and Freemasonry is explored.

Yet another “Way Out” article ( https://thewayout.substack.com/p/the-desire-of-roman-masters-to-supplant ) outlines the freemason “roots”, connections, and international dealings of Oren Root and other members of the Root family. Perhaps coincidentally, Oren Root made a small fortune in Manhattan real estate market after the misfortune of the German-American Christian community who largely abandoned Manhattan’s Lower East Side after the “General Slocum disaster”.

Motherwell’s admiration of James Joyce and Ulysses even prompted him to illustrate a limited publication of Ulysses with 40 prints (via https://graphicarts.princeton.edu/2021/04/22/ulysses-ab-ex/ ).

One Motherwell print of a depiction of James Joyce, with a rather interesting representation of his eyes, is shown below.

A series of interviews of Robert Burns Motherwell III covering the timeframe between November 1971 through May 1974 is available through the Smithsonian Archives of American Art (at https://www.aaa.si.edu/download_pdf_transcript/ajax?record_id=edanmdm-AAADCD_oh_212934 ). Excerpts provide Motherwell’s description of the Je T’aime series, feedback from fellow artists and critics, and also his experiences leading up to his painting of the Je T’aime series in 1955-57.

“PAUL CUMMINGS: Was the Je t’aime series the first one where you used words in the paintings?

ROBERT MOTHERWELL: No. There’s an early collage with “Viva” in it. No, I’m sure there were many before. You see, I never was really a Surrealist but I did go around with them for two or three years and picked up a lot. And certainly one of the things, generally speaking, was a belief that there’s something marvelous about painters and poets together, that they’re involved in different media but in a very parallel enterprise. And secondly, the Surrealists all the time used words interchangeably with blocks of color, or certain shapes, and so on, and it was I guess in a literal sense a lingua franca. And I took that for granted.

PAUL CUMMINGS: But it was very uncommon for American painters to use words in a painting?

ROBERT MOTHERWELL: Yes. But if I may say so, in that sense I’m a very uncommon American painter.

PAUL CUMMINGS: What was the reaction like from other painters when they saw the words appearing in the canvases?

ROBERT MOTHERWELL: I only know of one, which is devastating. Last year I was waiting in Bill Rubin’s office to see him about something. He was late so I looked on the table and there was this catalogue to Frank Stella’s show, which I had never read. I began to look at it. Suddenly I came across my name and Je t’aime and a footnote. I looked in the rear of the book at the footnote and it turns out that Stella had made a series of pictures with some really Pop title like “Purple Lips I Love You” or something and Stella had told Rubin that this was a parody of my Je t’aime series and that was how it occurred to him to do it. I don’t know the exact words we could look it up.

PAUL CUMMINGS: But in the collages there are a lot of words because there are printed pages and things. Do you use words, or are they just considered shapes or colors? Do the words mean something when they’re visible and apparent?

ROBERT MOTHERWELL: Oh, at times in my life when I painted I would play certain pieces of music again and again. I remember painting a whole show in which I continually played Mozart’s Requiem Mass. I remember another show when I made the Homely Protestant. I was very friendly with Joseph Cornell then who had an equal interest with me in French culture. One day he sent me a postcard that he had found a recording by Berlioz—who was really unknown here then—called Harold in Italy, and that I should get it. And I got it, the recording, where William Primrose plays the viola. I played that like mad all winter. Every time I turned it on something would move in me. It was in the same way that Delacroix, who I used to be an expert on, used to have people read Dante to him, or whatever, when he was painting. Another thing I often do is obsessionally read a book of poetry during a period. There was a period where I had a book of Paul Eluard’s poems. It was in a moment when I was very unhappily married, teaching at Hunter, feeling very lonely, very uptight. In one of the poems there was a line “Jour la maison nuit la rue,” meaning “In daytime at home, at night in the streets.” And that was exactly my miserable life at that time. I would stay home in the daytime and paint and by nighttime I couldn’t stand it anymore. I’d wander the streets, go to the Cedar Bar, drop in on Rothko, go to Times Square, or go to a movie, or I don’t know whatever. So that no, the phrase was not a decoration but a declaration. The Je t’aime series was done about the same time when I was equally miserable. People used to think I must have fallen in love and that’s why I was painting them. It was the exact opposite. It was really a cry that I would like to love, and probably an incorrect thing. I also wrote it in such a way that certain French people thought it said, “I’m hungry,” j’ai faim. Then everybody said: okay, you don’t know French very well really; you like lot of French things; why don’t you write it in English? But there’s such a thing as artistic distance, and if I had written, “I love you,” it would have had what nowadays what we would call a “Pop quality” that I didn’t want. Whereas in a foreign language it was exactly what I meant, and yet it was one step removed.

PAUL CUMMINGS: What would it be to a Frenchman, though?

ROBERT MOTHERWELL: Probably Pop art.”

Later in the interview, Motherwell spoke about his faculty appointment at Hunter College and also mentioned that he had been offered the position of head of an academic department at Yale.

PAUL CUMMINGS: In the teaching at Hunter you had what graduate courses? Or undergraduate courses?

ROBERT MOTHERWELL: With the exception of one hour, only graduate courses. In fact, when I first went there I was the only full time graduate professor. I mean essentially I taught everything the studio, the seminars, read the theses, the whole shooting match.

PAUL CUMMINGS: How much do you think one can teach though in a studio course in a university situation?

ROBERT MOTHERWELL: I don’t know now. Then, I think one had to do it in conjunction with a seminar. In fact at the end of my tenure at Hunter, Yale wanted me to become, when Albers retired, the head of the department there. It so happens that at Yale, the art school and the art history department are entirely separate. I mean even organizationally they’re set up differently. I said that if I taught, I would only teach if I could teach art history in conjunction with studio. They refused to make that coalition. So I refused to accept the job.

Recall that, late in his career, Patrick McCaughey served as Director of the Yale Center for British Art. Yet another similarity is that in 1973 Patrick McCaughey took a position at Monash University “as full professor at only 30 years of age, charged with creating a new department and discipline within the university” , specifically a “department which dealt with art, its history, and criticism.” (pp. 151-152)

At another point in the interview dialogue, Robert Motherwell revealed the circumstances surrounding his personal life and finances in the mid—1950’s, closely corresponding to the time period when he painted the Je T’aime series.

PAUL CUMMINGS: [..] In 1953, you moved to 94th Street, which is the house you lived in until recently. [..] Where had you been prior to 94th Street?

ROBERT MOTHERWELL: Yeah. On 82nd Street. For a couple of years, I’d been teaching at Hunter and I think then was given tenure. And I lived in an apartment on 82nd Street and painted in the dining room. But in ‘52, my wife, who was a very bourgeois woman, who had a child, became pregnant—and it was obvious that the apartment, which was already inadequate for my both painting and living there, and I liked to work at home—would be hopelessly inadequate with the birth of another child. And one day, by chance, I picked up the New York Times and there was an old brownstone for sale on 94th Street, very cheaply. And an old aunt that I’d had, who I’d only ever seen once, had died intestate. And so all of her nieces and nephews became partial heirs, and I inherited a few thousand dollars. I forget what. Eight thousand or something. Uh, but it was enough for the down payment. And I’d always lived, till I came to New York, in houses, block houses. This was on a block of all houses with gardens. And I realized that if just painted the place white, which is all I could afford to do, that there was plenty of space, that I could work at home perfectly peacefully. And um, took it and lived there until just a few months ago when Helen Frankenthaler and I got divorced and as part of the property settlement she took it.

PAUL CUMMINGS: Um, well, were there any other particular activities that happened that year? That must have taken a lot of time moving into, to the house, and setting up.

ROBERT MOTHERWELL: I had a show at Kootz, which I don’t even remember. But it did take a while. And also the birth of the child uh, was my first child of my own. And that takes a lot of time and excitement, and revising of your life, and so on, because a baby requires a lot of care and concern, and so on. It was also the early ‘50s or the mid-’50s. They were a rather low point in my career. I was actually very unhappy and painted the least I ever have. And was also being—having moved uptown teaching. Would you say—having moved out of the center of Greenwich Village, and the Artists’ Club and all of that, because I couldn’t keep those hours any more. And the tremendous push behind especially de Kooning, and Kline, and Guston and so on, all of whom were latecomers, really around ‘49 or ‘50. Um, part of the strategy behind them was obviously to push the older ones off the center of the stage. So it was a very low time economically, artistically, and for that matter, uh, domestically. And which, I suppose my main energy went into teaching those, say, four or five years. Though, occasionally I painted very well. I painted the—at that time, somewhere along—I painted the Albright Elegy, The Spanish Republic, which some people think is the best picture I ever painted. And did some other things. But it was—um, the mid-’50s were I think the lowest moment in my professional and personal career.”

For perspective, the $8,000 dollars Robert Motherwell received in 1952 or shortly thereafter equates to just over $100,000 today – quite a windfall, and very timely it would seem. Generally speaking, when a person wishes to conceal the source of a sudden income, an inheritance from the death a distant relative is sometimes falsely claimed to be the source of funds.

Given that Motherwell painted Je T’aime as a series, one might query which of the paintings belonged to the art critic Clem Greenberg when Patrick McCaughey visited his Manhattan home. It turns out that the history of one of the painting has been documented as having been given to Clem Greenberg as a wedding present (per https://www.kingandmcgaw.com/prints/robert-motherwell/je-t-aime-no-3-with-loaf-of-bread-1955-438763#438763::frame:880610_glass:770007_media:0_mount:108644_mount-width:50 ):

Je T’Aime No.3 with Loaf of Bread, 1955 (by) Robert Motherwell (#438763)

“Robert Motherwell was an American abstract expressionist painter and printmaker. He was recognised for his series of abstract prints and paintings which touched upon political, philosophical, and literary themes. In 1955 Motherwell produced ‘Je T’Aime No.3 with Loaf of Bread’ an abstract painting executed in soft pastel colours alluding to poetry and love. Motherwell gave the painting to America’s most foremost critic, Clement Greenberg, and his wife as a wedding present.”

According to the art auction house Christie’s website (https://www.christies.com/en/artists/robert-motherwell ), the Robert Motherwell painting, “Je T’aime No. III with Loaf of Bread” was sold in November 2017 for more than $2.6 million dollars.

For some background, Robert Burns Motherwell III was married three times, and fellow artist Helen Frankenthaler was his second wife; they were married from 1958-1971. A story published at a Stanford University website ( https://anderson.stanford.edu/in-the-news/helen-frankenthaler-came-from-wealth-and-privilege-her-art-transcends-that/ ) recounts a story which is relevant.

“25 March 2021

In October 1955, at a party in New York’s West Village, the art critic Clement Greenberg slapped his then girlfriend, the artist Helen Frankenthaler. He hit her hard enough to make her cry, which attracted the notice of others at the party. The incident is shocking, as was the reaction of another guest, a woman who came into the room where Frankenthaler was weeping. On her way out of the party, she asked for Greenberg’s number, and they later married.

The Frankenthaler portrayed in art historian Alexander Nemerov’s biography “Fierce Poise” (publishing Monday by Penguin Press) comes from a world that we now find in many ways incomprehensible. It is an age held in disrepute, in which male artists behaved abominably to women and to each other; in which alcohol and drugs weren’t just the lubricant of social discourse but a substrate in which civilized norms were regularly dissolved. Greenberg is now seen not as a greatly talented and greatly flawed intellectual but simply as an ogre, the embodiment of criticism as gatekeeping, the mansplainer in chief of abstract expressionism, who could make or break careers, including those of the women with whom he slept.”

The wedding at which Je T’aime No. III with Loaf of Bread was given by Motherwell to Clem Greenberg and his new wife occurred in spring of 1956, only a few months after the above-described incident (https://acomplicatedmarriage.com/photos.html ). A second takeaway from this short passage is the frank opinion of Clem Greenberg’s ability to identify talent in an artist. How does one discern whether an art critic is truly a gifted observer or is instead simply an “ogre” and a “gatekeeper”? John Ruskin offers sound advice on this matter for those interested, but it falls outside the present scope of this article.

For what it is worth, fellow art critic Patrick McCaughey closed a rather lengthy discussion of his experiences with Clem Greenberg with a compliment, saying, “Clement Greenberg stands in sharp relief as one of the true names.” (p. 117)

Before considering the specific series of Je T’aime series of the mid-1950’s, it is helpful to listen to a 1977 interview of Robert Motherwell (available at

). In the first excerpt, note his reluctance-perhaps out of modesty- to state that he was received money in exchange for his artwork. He follows up by touching on his heritage and-perhaps-his personal form of religion:

Interviewer: “Speaking of drinking matters, Baron Philippe de Rothschild several years ago commissioned you to execute a particular painting [for] a Mouton Rothschild wine label. What prompted you to do that, and what is the image?”

Motherwell (at 9:10): “Well, again, there are a lot of elements involved. In the first place, it wasn’t exactly a commission. He called me one day and, in effect, as one gentleman to another replied, ‘I’m very good at what I do, and you’re very good at what you do. Would you like to exchange?’ And tempermentally, I would much rather exchange than sell. [..] It also happened, at that moment, I had just finished- there’s an aspect of my work that’s not very well known because I’ve never really pulled it all together for an exhibition. A lot of them that I did in the fifties are in England. They are sort of primordial creatures in a way. [..] Stonehenge hits me the same way. I am half-Scottish and half-Irish, which is to say Celtic. There is something that remains… but who knows.

Interviewer: “You think of yourself as a Celtic?”

Motherwell: “Yeah, definitely.

Robert Motherwell then proceeds to explain the artwork for the wine label, which is an interesting subject in itself but separate from the Je T’aime series.

Later (at 24:00), Motherwell defines “abstract” as “to take from or to select from”, adding:

“In telling a story, one has to select. The only other way someone could do would be to make a world identical with this world, which I think sometimes certain realist painters really want to do. But let’s say your subject is the Battle of Gettysburg. If you really want to do it realistically, you have to include every soldier in it, every cloud, every tree, every drop of blood, every everything. And obviously, even people who want to represent are highly selective in what they do, so that the essential nature of abstraction is ‘to select from’ and the point of the selection is emphasis. And so there is [..] no work of art that is not essentially abstract by definition for the purpose of emphasis.

But there is a lot of work now that is abstract to the degree that it is difficult to know what is being emphasized. Not only that, but there is a lot of contemporary abstract work whose basic premise is that all things are equal. Nothing is emphasized, and I find it a kind of madness to regard all values as equal. I mean it’s impossible for an intelligent human being to regard a Coca-Cola and an assassination as of equal value.”

The points made by Robert Motherwell suggest that he intended for those viewing his artwork to do more than simply shrug at the painting. His goal was to communicate a message using “abstracted content”. In a sense, one would be doing him a disservice if one failed to attempt to understand the message of the Je T’aime series in its fullness.

Before delving into the specifics of interpretation, it is helpful to consult this video clip of Robert Motherwell from 1987 (at

). When asked to comment on his art, he says:

Motherwell: “From my point of view [..] the most brutal and direct way of saying it is: Art of the world in every period, every country, everything has produced very great art- but it’s all been tribal art. And for me, modernism is the first art – an art of complete individuals [..] who are not tribal people, but specific individuals expressing specific individual things. It’s also true that in a tribal society, one can differentiate between Titian and Tintoretto-or Uccello and Giotto, or African and South Seas- to some degree. But I think it’s not known, for example, many of the great Romanesque sculptors of the cathedrals of France and so on- that they had absolutely in common that they were craftsmen making the idols of the tribes they belong to, whether it was Jesus Christ or voodoo or Jehovah or Allah and so on. What makes it difficult from modern times is from the point of view of ideas of progress and so on, it fractures society more and more… [..] Around the middle of the 19^th century – I suppose Boudelaire’s essay ‘La Vie Moderne’ was really an argument that no longer do we have to paint the lords and ladies, no longer do we have to paint the religious icons, no longer do we have to paint the world of power and glory. We can paint what interests us. And the English, who have been the least modernist as a whole culture I think, turned to landscape as a way out that was neutral, that was not making monuments out of institutions and people. And Baudelaire insists again and again that we don’t need historical painting- Greek gods appearing as Madonnas. We don’t need all of that mythology. Look at the carriages in the street and all the rest of it. [..]”

On this question of the English turning to landscape painting, consider the counterpoint with respect to nature and religion made by the true expert on the subject, John Ruskin (once more from The True and the Beautiful published in 1870 by Wiley and Halstead).

Ruskin, p. 337-38: “Now you will ask me and you will ask me most reasonably- how this love of nature can be connected with Christianity, seeing it’s as strong in the infidel, (Percy) Shelley, as it is in the sacred Wordsworth. Yes, and it was found in men far worse than Shelley. He was an honest unbeliever, and a man of warm affections; but this new love of nature is found in the most feckless and unprincipled of the French novelists- in Eugene Sue, in Dumas, in George Sand, and that intensely. How is this? Simply because the feeling is reactionary; and in this phase of it common in the diseased mind as well as the healthy one. A man dying in fever of intemperance will cry out for water, and that with a bitterer thirst than a man whose healthy frame naturally delights in the mountain spring more than in the wine cup. The water is not dishonored by the love of the unworthy. That love is, perhaps, the only saving element in their minds; and it still remains an indisputable truth that the love of nature is a characteristic of the Christian heart, just as the hunger for healthy food is characteristic of the healthy frame.”

Later in the text:

(Ruskin) p. 387: “The love of nature has been associated with faithlessness. [..] Because it happens that, by various concurrent operations of evil, we have been led, according to the words of the Greek poet already quoted ‘to dethrone the gods and crown the whirlwind’. It is no reason that we should forget that there was a time when ‘the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind’ And if we take final and full view if the matter, we shall find the that love of nature, wherever it has existed, has been a faithful and sacred element of human feeling; that is to say, supposing all circumstances otherwise the same, the one who loves nature most will be always found to have more faith in God than the other.”

Returning to Robert Motherwell’s comments from 1987:

(Motherwell): Now even though we’re a herd of individuals, there is a very strong remaining tribal resistance against what we’re all aspiring to be, which is individuals. So that becomes a basic conflict, especially (among) the less literate. [..] Art is a transaction between the maker and the observer, or the listener, or the reader. The readers, or the listeners, or the lookers tend to be-no matter how much they defend individualism-carrying around the remnants of the tribal tradition. And there are people who adventure as far as they can as to what is really (their) identity, reality, and perception of the world. And in a funny way, that involves other the great source of resistance- Nationalism. And the real struggle impending in America in the last 50 years or so was the effort of some of us to use world standards, international standards, instead of Americana. [.. to 10:46] In all of the arts, there is a savage struggle, really, between Modernists and, let’s say, Nationalists or Tribalists. ”

It is clear that Motherwell speaks about people whom today would be called “Christian Nationalists” by their detractors, decades prior to the current vernacular. Clearly, he is frustrated with the “less literate” citizens who remain faithful to God and who resist becoming “Modernist individuals” who accept “international standards”.

Taken as a whole, it appears that Robert Burns Motherwell III sought to lead people toward a “New World Order” in which “nations” and “tribes” are replaced by a “global” Modernist society. Given his explicit mention of Americana, it would appear that his primary target for this transformation is the people of the United States.

Now let us return to the Je T’aime series and attempt to comprehend its abstracted meaning with Motherwell’s point of view taken into consideration. As a starting point, let us focus on a description of each work before decoding any possible intended meaning of the series.

The first drawing unnumbered shows the text “Je t’aime” along with ‘le dessin me plait’ which would be ‘the drawing pleases me’ if taken at face value in French. Je T’aime (unnumbered akin to number 1, drawing) can be found at: https://www.singulart.com/en/artworks/robert-motherwell-je-t-aime-2122329

A triangle with two near-circles within it contacts a nearly vertical straight line. To the left of the vertical line is another mostly vertical line with a few mild curves or kinks. At the far left, a third line is bent rather sharply at its midway point. One way to interpret the drawing is to imagine that an object represented by the triangle were moving from right to left. The vertical line would then bend in a progression of time steps, also from right-to-left, rather than left to right, opposite to how one reads in English. One might interpret that representation of a reversal of time, as in Omega returning to Alpha.

Je T’aime Number II can be found at https://dedalusfoundation.org/robert-motherwell/key-artworks/view/je-taime-no-ii/

It presents two vertical pairs of adjacent rectangles, brightly colored red and orange, with the pairs positioned on each side of the painting and mirrored in pattern. Our eyes are focused past the unbroken prominent vertical rectangles toward the center of the painting. The perspective suggests objects between the rectangles might be comparatively distant. In the center are two oval-shapes, also side-by-side with the size of each oval being essentially the same. The oval on the left is colored black-and-white while the oval on the right is more subdued and blends in more with the background colors. Might it suggest that one oval is closer than the other in time?

Je T’aime No. III with Loaf of Bread was mentioned above. Two additional links may be accessed at: https://dedalusfoundation.org/robert-motherwell/key-artworks/view/je-taime-no-iii-with-loaf-of-bread and https://dedalusfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/P159_33322_web-1130x1500.jpg

Two brightly colored orange lines are bent at an obtuse angle at roughly their midway point. In this respect, there is similarity to Je T’aime (the drawing above). Darker colors- brown, gray, and bluish- gray are adjacent to the bent orange lines. Likewise, darker paint shades the white background from about the halfway point of the blue-gray regions adjacent to the rightmost orange line and slants slightly upward to the right. One might imagine that portion of the painting evokes a sense of smoke drifting upward and to the right.

In the foreground, a bi-color loaf of bread is positioned prominently. “Le dessin me plait” (French for “The drawing pleases me”) is written in script on the bread.

Given the reference to “Number III” (or “Number 3”, depending on the reference) which often represents the Holy Trinity of Christianity and “bread”, one might associate the combination as a reference to the Temptation of Christ. To be specific:

Luke 4:1-4 And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led about by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And He ate nothing in those days; and when they had ended, He became hungry. And the devil said to Him, ‘If You are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread.’ And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”

Here, it helps to know that Robert Burns Motherwell III titled one of his last works The Grand Inquisitor. (From https://www.frieze.com/article/you-have-be-there-power-and-presence-robert-motherwells-large-scale-paintings ):

“The exhibition’s opening work, which occupies a central frontal wall, is also its most compelling: The Grand Inquisitor (1989-90) (earlier title: Catalonia), a painting completed by Motherwell in the year before his death, and perhaps the best example of his Hollow Men motif.”

It often seems that Dostoyevsky is omnipresent. In the great author’s telling of a story within a story, through the Dostoyevsky character, Ivan Karamazov. Ivan narrates a story about the Grand Inquisitor character encountering Jesus, come back to life in roughly 1500 AD. The Grand Inquisitor intends that the risen Jesus be burned at the stake in order to maintain order.

A compelling line in the story-within-a-story occurs when the Grand Inquisitor says of the peasants:

(Dostoyevsky, through his Grand Inquisitor): “We shall allow them even sin, they are weak and helpless, and they will love us like children because we allow them to sin. We shall tell them that every sin will be atoned if it is done with our permission. We shall tell them that we allow them to sin because we love them, and the punishment for these sins we take upon ourselves.”

The next painting in the series is Je T’aime No. IV: https://www.artsy.net/artwork/robert-motherwell-je-taime-no-iv

It shows a red background on the left, and an orange background on the right. There are no prominent vertical lines or bent lines present in this image. A central portion of the image includes a large gray-blue object atop two stunted red-and-orange rectangles. The centrally-positioned gray blue object is triangular with two bright oval shapes- one white and the other yellow. To the left of the central region is a third gray-blue object with a white obejct suggesting five sides. An upper left gray-blue trapezoid-shaped object has characters which may be “IIV” or the Roman number VII (seven) if read right-to-left. The apostrophe in “Je t’aime” also resembles the Arabic numeral “7”. Perhaps the combination of the two “number sevens”, as in “77”, has some abstracted meaning.

From the above website, another description is offered of Je T’aime No. IV:

“This is by far the largest of the paintings with the words “Je t’aime” (I love you) in their titles. The way the declarations of that love are written across these paintings varies from what Motherwell characterized as “tenderly” to a “shriek.” He later described them as expressions of longing, as cries from the heart, the desperate declarations of his desire to love. This picture, which is the most boldly colored of the series, bears a strong resemblance to a still life with a figure standing next to it.

Gallery M

During the early and mid-1950’s, another idea was evolving in New York City. (Per https://wtc.com/history-timeline/ ):

“In 1946, New York State Legislature created the World Trade Corporation to develop the proposed World Trade Center. The original proposal was for only one 70-story building in Downtown Manhattan, not the final twin towers design. Winthrop Aldrich, chairman of Chase Bank, was appointed to explore the project’s feasibility. The New York State Legislature passed a bill authorizing Governor Thomas E. Dewey to move forward with development.

The World Trade Corporation nominated one of the nation’s premier architectural firms, Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill (SOM) to develop a plan for a “new Lower Manhattan” in 1958.

SOM proposed a complete rebuilding and expansion of the Financial District and suggested building a World Trade Center. In 1958, Chase Manhattan Bank vice chair David Rockefeller announced plans to build a multi-million-square-foot complex on Lower Manhattan’s east side. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) agreed to oversee the project. Although many questioned the Port Authority’s entry into the real estate market, Austin J. Tobin, Executive Director of the PANYNJ saw the project as a way to enhance the agency’s power and prestige.

September 20, 1962: The Port Authority chose the current site for the World Trade Center.

Minoru Yamasaki was selected to design the project. Less than two years and more than 100 design concepts later, the Port Authority unveiled the $525 million World Trade Center plan to the public. It was a composite of six buildings comprised of 10 million square feet of office space. At its core were the Twin Towers, which at 110 stories (1,368 and 1,362 feet) would be the world’s tallest skyscrapers.”

One source describes how David Rockefeller led not only the development of the Twin Towers but also how his brother Nelson led the construction of the New York Museum of Modern Art (MoMA). The source also suggests that the Twin Towers had an informal nickname, (per https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/newyork-rockefeller/ ):

“Nelson, the second and most ambitious of John D. Rockefeller Jr.’s five sons, had begun his career in the Depression, helping his father transform midtown Manhattan through a spectacular office complex, Rockefeller Center, which became the supreme emblem of New York’s new role as “headquarters city” for American corporations. In late 1946, when New York had seemed to be out of the running as the headquarters for the United Nations, Nelson had stepped in at the 11th hour, with the help of his brother David, to ensure that the new world organization made its home in the city -- by arranging for the purchase of the East River site with $8.5 million of their father’s money.

David, the youngest and most determined of the brothers, had worked as an assistant to New York mayor Fiorello La Guardia before joining the international loan division of his family’s bank, Chase, perhaps the most powerful financial institution in the world. By the mid-1950s, he was already becoming known as a “banker-statesman,” who understood how to leverage financial resources to achieve larger political and diplomatic ends — and how to leverage those ends, in turn, to amass more riches still.

From their offices on the 56th floor of 30 Rockefeller Plaza, the two brothers — now taking over the reins of the family fortune from their father — solidified their place at the very center of the East Coast power establishment. Nelson, preparing a bid for the governorship of New York State, exercised his passion for modern art and architecture by taking over leadership of his mother Abby Aldrich Rockefeller’s project, the Museum of Modern Art, whose spectacular rise in the 1950s reflected the historic postwar shift of the art world from Paris to New York. David, meanwhile, rapidly ascending through Chase’s upper ranks, embarked on an even larger initiative — engineering a merger with the Bank of Manhattan to form Chase Manhattan, a financial colossus that would lead the way for American companies to transcend national boundaries and operate globally.

Even as that expansion was getting under way, David turned his sights to a more pressing problem, much closer to home: the ailing fortunes of the old financial district around Wall Street, which was now threatening to unravel completely in the face of the postwar boom remaking its rival four miles to the north, midtown Manhattan. In November 1955, David boldly announced that Chase Manhattan would construct a new headquarters just one block north of Wall Street — a 60-story glass-and-steel tower rising from its own raised plaza that would represent the first major commercial construction in the district since the Depression.

Concerned that even that bold gesture might not be enough to stem the exodus of business uptown, David next assembled a powerful coalition of business and real-estate leaders, called the Downtown-Lower Manhattan Association, to come up with a more sweeping proposal. At the center of the ambitious 550-block redevelopment program, released in 1959, would rise an updated version of the idea first floated more than a decade earlier — one that would soon become David Rockefeller’s most burning ambition: a World Trade Center.

“David wanted to build an economic development entity,” one aide later recalled, “that would also be a symbol of international business.” “We don’t want to compete with existing office space,” the banker himself declared, defending the idea of the specialized, trade-related complex. “We want to provide some new use. A World Trade Center seems logical and it seems logical to have it near the banks that service the bulk of U.S. foreign trade.”

Like Rockefeller Center and Chase Manhattan before it, the complex would be an example of what David called “catalytic bigness” — a project whose sheer size and impact would be large enough to provide the stimulus for further redevelopment. Indeed, the project David had in mind was so large and ambitious that it would require the resources of the state to bring it to fruition. As it happened, by January 1959 those resources were under the control of a new governor— David’s brother, Nelson — who would soon take the lead in making his youngest sibling’s vision a reality. In the years to come, as the project began rising over the skyline of Lower Manhattan, New Yorkers would give the immense twin towers a knowing nickname: David and Nelson.”

Today, David Rockefeller Jr. is listed as a Life Trustee of the MoMA, and Robert Soros is listed as Chair of the Board of MoMA (PS1). (https://www.moma.org/about/trustees archived at https://archive.is/wH7l7 ).

Later, in the 1980’s (per https://wtc.com/history-timeline/ ):

“The 610-foot Seven WTC (also called “WTC7”) was designed by Emery Roth & Sons with a red granite façade and a trapezoidal footprint. To supply power to the 10048 zip code, which was dedicated solely to the WTC site, Con Edison built an electrical substation located below Seven WTC in 1967. Tishman Realty & Construction managed construction of the building, which began in 1983. Some of the major tenants at Seven WTC were Salomon Smith Barney, American Express Bank International, ITT Hartford Insurance Group and Standard Chartered Bank.”

A Federal Emergency Management document (https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf ) outlined the 11 September 2011 events in relation to the World Trade Center (WTC) Building 7 collapse.

“Collapse of WTC 2: At 9:59 a.m., WTC 2 (the south tower) collapsed.

Collapse of WTC 1: At 10:29 a.m., WTC 1 (the north tower) collapsed, sending its debris into the streets below. The extent and severity of the resulting damage to WTC 7 are currently unknown. However, from photographic evidence and eyewitness accounts discussed below, it was assumed that the south side of the building was damaged to some degree and that fires in WTC 7 started at approximately this time.

[..]

“WTC 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m. There were no known casualties due to this collapse. The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings.

[..]

From the official NIST prepared “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center 7”, column buckling was a primary factor in initiating the collapse.

https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

“WTC 7 was an irregular trapezoid, approximately 100 m (329 ft) long on the north face and 75 m (247 ft) long on the south face, 44 m (144 ft) wide, and 186 m (610 ft) tall. The 47 story building contained approximately 200,000 m² (2 million ft²) of floor area. A typical floor was similar in size to a football field.

[..]

“The unsupported girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This left Column 79 with insufficient lateral support, and as a consequence, the column buckled eastward, becoming the initial local failure for collapse initiation.

Due to the buckling of Column 79 between Floors 5 and 14, the upper section of Column 79 began to descend. The downward movement of Column 79 led to the observed kink in the east penthouse, and its subsequent descent. The cascading failures of the lower floors surrounding Column 79 led to increased unsupported length in, falling debris impact on, and loads being re-distributed to adjacent columns; and Column 80 and then Column 81 buckled as well.”

Suppose that one started with the NIST figure and selected only the three columns (shown as 79, 80, and 81) for emphasis. Do they resemble the three lines at the right of the “Je T’aime” drawing, only mirrored?

Is it simply a coincidence that WTC7 was an irregular trapezoid, much like the gray-blue irregular trapezoid shape in Motherwell’s “Je T’aime IV” painting with IIV (or VII if mirrored, left-to right, as was done for the last figure of Treatise on Painting earlier in this article ) within its interior?

Starting with the Je T’aime drawing, one might imagine the triangle representing an airplane and the vertical line in contact with it as an initially intact structure. The drawing suggests the general concept.

One way of interpreting the three numbered Je T’aime paintings (II, III with loaf of bread, and IV) is to see them as them as presaging the 11 September 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. 1) One might envision Je T’aime II as a view between the Twin Towers, observing the two ovals- each representing an aircraft fuselage viewed from the front- flying toward the buildings, corresponding to approximately 8:30 AM (US Eastern time). 2) In Je T’aime No. III with Loaf of Bread, the two bent, but otherwise vertical, lines prominent in the upper left portion of the painting may represent the Twin Towers after each had been struck by Boeing 757 aircraft but before either tower fell, with smoke drifting toward the right in the painting. This would correspond to about 10:00 AM. 3) In Je T’aime No. IV, the prominent gray-blue triangle in the center containing adjacent white and yellow regions may represent the aftermath of the collapse of the Twin Towers while the upper irregular trapezoid in the upper right with “IIV” -a mirror image of VII - may allude to the collapse of WTC7. Given the apostrophe shaped liked the Arabic numeral “7” combined with the mirrored “VII”, it is conceivable that the painting might allude to the 77^th Brigade. In the timeline, this painting would correspond to the late afternoon or evening of 11 September 2001. The bright red, orange, and yellow colors in the background may represent fire, or they may signal the imagined sunset of one Age and announced arrival of a “New World Order”.

It should be noted that an archived video (at https://archive.org/details/bbc_wtc7 ) provides evidence that the BBC announced the WTC Building 7 collapse on the air 23 minutes before the collapse occurred. The collapse itself took less than ten seconds from beginning to end. According to USA Today “fact-check” story (at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/09/11/bbc-news-report-on-911-was-a-mistake-not-proof-of-plan-fact-check/70826459007/ ), the BBC tacitly validated the video content but added that:

“BBC News reported the collapse based on incorrect information from Reuters that was later corrected. BBC News has repeatedly addressed what happened during its reporting that day. In a piece written in September 2021, the news agency said it relied on information from Reuters, which had reported that the building came down.”

Others may interpret the Je T’aime series as having a different meaning, but it would be a disservice to the high quality of the abstract expressionist artwork to do so without accounting for the espoused philosophy of Robert Burns Motherwell III, whose work was honored in 1989 by President George H.W. Bush (

) at a National Medal of the Arts Ceremony on 17 November 1989.

Incidentally, Helen Frankenthaler (recall - Motherwell’s second wife and one-time girlfriend of Clem Greenberg) was honored for her work by President George W. Bush at the 2001 National Medal of Arts and Humanities Awards Ceremony ( https://www.c-span.org/program/white-house-event/2001-national-medals-of-the-arts-and-humanitiesawards-ceremony/147331?169718/arts-humanities-medal-presentation ). That ceremony was delayed until April 2022 due to the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks.

Is it possible the series was commissioned in the mid-1950’s from Robert Motherwell in order to provide as “predictive programming” of the events of 11 September 2001?

One post-September 11^th item which suggests that the Motherwell series served as “predictive programming” is suggested by Patrick McCaughey himself. His “typo” of misplacing the apostrophe leading to “Je’taime” draws attention to the short phrase. Is it a coincidence that the phrase “Je t’aime” resembles “Jet aim”? Might the phrase be an allusion to the steering of the two Boeing 757 aircraft into the Twin Towers (WTC1 and WTC2)?

Recall from earlier in this article that Patrick McCaughey served as a “contributor” to Great British Paintings from American Collections: Holbein to Hockney, (see https://britishart.yale.edu/publications/great-british-paintings-american-collections-holbein-hockney (add archived version too), which happens to list its “Publication date: September 10, 2001”. One of the featured artists in the text is Lucian Freud, the grandson of Sigmund Freud.

Given the correspondence in the names “Patrick McCaughey”/ “Patrick McCaughey III” and the many discussions of “intelligence” of the former in his memoir, is it possible that the events which took place on 11 September 2001 and 6 January 2021 - and for that matter 15 June 1904- share a certain illuminating factor?

Gallery N

The broken column is a symbol in Freemasonry, according to the website https://masonicsymbols.3-5-7.nl/301/broken-column/ , which states:

“The broken column/pillar sometimes refers to the destroyed Temple of King Solomon. In some lodges lectures are given from behind a broken column. The broken column has a general grave symbolism of an ended life. Sometimes a weeping lady (virgin) stands next to the pillar (often with a man behind her representing time). The latter image is sometimes a reference to the passing of Hiram.”

The destruction of the First Temple of King Solomon and the Second Temple is described in the Bible (see https://biblehub.com/topical/d/destruction_of_the_temple.htm ):

“The Destruction of the Temple refers primarily to two significant events in Jewish history: the destruction of Solomon’s Temple by the Babylonians in 586 BC and the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in AD 70. Both events hold profound theological and historical significance within the biblical narrative and the broader context of Jewish and Christian thought.

Solomon’s Temple, also known as the First Temple, was constructed under the reign of King Solomon, as detailed in 1 Kings 6-7. It served as the central place of worship for the Israelites and housed the Ark of the Covenant. The Temple symbolized God’s presence among His people and was the focal point of Israelite religious life.

The destruction of the First Temple occurred in 586 BC when the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II besieged Jerusalem. This event is recorded in 2 Kings 25:8-9: ‘On the seventh day of the fifth month, in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign over Babylon, Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, entered Jerusalem. He burned down the house of the LORD, the royal palace, and all the houses of Jerusalem—every significant building.’ The destruction was a direct consequence of Israel’s persistent idolatry and disobedience to God’s covenant, as prophesied by Jeremiah and other prophets (Jeremiah 25:8-11).

The fall of Jerusalem and the Temple marked the beginning of the Babylonian Exile, a period of profound spiritual and national crisis for the Jewish people. Theologically, it underscored the seriousness of covenantal faithfulness and the consequences of turning away from God.

The Second Temple was constructed after the return from Babylonian exile, under the leadership of Zerubbabel, as recorded in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. It was later expanded and renovated by Herod the Great, becoming a magnificent structure that played a central role in Jewish life during the time of Jesus.

The destruction of the Second Temple occurred in AD 70, during the First Jewish-Roman War. The Roman general Titus besieged Jerusalem, and the Temple was set ablaze, fulfilling Jesus’ prophecy in Matthew 24:1-2: “As Jesus left the temple and was walking away, His disciples came up to Him to point out its buildings. ‘Do you see all these things?’ He replied. ‘Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.’”

The destruction of the Second Temple had profound implications for both Judaism and Christianity. For Judaism, it marked the end of the sacrificial system and the centralization of worship in Jerusalem, leading to a transformation in religious practice and the rise of Rabbinic Judaism. For Christianity, it was seen as a fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy and a sign of the new covenant established through His death and resurrection.

Theologically, the destruction of both Temples serves as a powerful reminder of the consequences of disobedience and the transient nature of earthly institutions. It also points to the hope of restoration and the establishment of a new covenant, as prophesied in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament through Jesus Christ.”

Among Christians, King Herod is known best for his villainous actions. One source describes the views of Herod held among the Jews of Judea in a similar fashion (from https://www.thecollector.com/how-did-the-romans-rule-judea/ ):

“(O)ne shrewd politician who had served as the tetrarch of Galilee under Rome was able to escape the Parthian conquest. He eventually made it to Rome and, in an act reminiscent of what Judas Maccabaeus had done over a century before, asked for Rome’s help—but this time the request was for direct intervention rather than just an alliance. This man’s name was Herod. History remembers him as Herod the Great. With Rome’s military and diplomatic backing, Herod returned to Judea in 37 BCE and reconquered it on behalf of Rome.

Herod’s success meant a victory for Rome. But was it a victory for the Jews as well? The truth is that, by this time, many Jews resented Rome deeply. Pompey’s conquest of Judea had resulted in the death of twelve thousand Jews. Meanwhile, Aristobulus II had been a legitimate priest, and some Jews felt that the Parthians might prove better rulers than the Romans had been. Herod, thus, was not hailed as a Jewish liberator. Instead, he represented Judea’s oppressors.

But on top of this problem, Herod had no traditional kingly qualifications. While the Hasmoneans were not in the line of David as a Judean king was expected to be, they were at least of priestly stock. Herod, however, was of neither. His father was an Idumean convert to Judaism. Herod was, thus, a “king of the Jews” only because Rome said he was.”

Consider that the primary goal of the Romans was that the Jews-and other colonized peoples- should meekly accept their subordinate position and pay burdensome “taxes” to Roman authorities. This heavy “taxation without representation” levied by the Romans upon the Jews differed little from grand larceny, enforced at the point of a sword. In this sense, the Roman government resembled the Communist government of the Soviet Union. Arguably, the Romans-centuries earlier- were initially more permissive than the Communists with respect to religion. Whereas the Soviet Union criminalized many forms of Christian worship and planned to “see the last priest”, the Romans- initially, and for a time-permitted the Jews to practice their faith within certain bounds. Nonetheless, overall, the Jews were placed in a position which differed little from slavery.

After several decades of rule, the Romans had surely gathered an understanding of the history of the Jews-slaves under the Egyptians until God brought about plague after plague. Moses pleaded with Pharaoh to free the Jews, yet time after time- no matter what was promised by Pharaoh- his heart was hardened and the Jews remained in captivity. Finally, the last plague led to a different outcome:

Exodus 11:1, 4-7 (excerpts, New American Standard): Now the Lord said to Moses, “One more plague I shall bring on Pharaoh and on Egypt; after that he will let you go from here. When he lets you go, he will surely drive you out from here completely. [..]

And Moses said, “Thus says the Lord, ‘About midnight I am going out into the midst of Egypt, and all the first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first-born of the Pharaoh who sits on his throne; even to the first-born of the slave girl who sits behind the millstone [..]. Moreover, there shall be a great cry in all the land of Egypt, such as there has never been before and such as shall never be again. But against any of the sons of Israel a dog shall not even bark, whether against man or beast…”

This is not the type of story a Roman “master” would welcome, and it surely brought about a sense of unease. Is there any doubt that the Roman rulers kept this passage in mind at all times when dealing with the Jews and their religious faith? Is it any surprise that the Roman razed the Second Temple in AD 70?

It is worth remembering that, centuries later, Machiavelli used prototypical leaders of the Roman Empire as his model for the behavior of the lead character of his book, The Prince. Machiavelli’s fictional Prince strategically installed a Lieutenant to take command of a conquered people and compelled his underling to rule with extreme cruelty, leading those vanquished to detest their governor. This worked to the Prince’s advantage as he double-crossed the Lieutenant, executed him, and publicly displayed his mangled body centrally among the suppressed population. The Prince claimed that he had gotten word of the mistreatment of the conquered populace, was appalled, and brought swift justice upon their governor. His stern action against his own Lieutenant was welcomed and led to his grudging acceptance among those whom he had conquered. Thus, the Prince solidified the acquisition and enlarged his kingdom.

Bearing this story in mind, consult the story of the Magi, which begins:

Matthew 2:1-3 “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.”

And when Herod the king heard it, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.”

That last phrase “and all Jerusalem with him” is of paramount importance. It means that the Roman authorities who placed Herod in power-effectively as a “puppet” of the Romans- were aware of the announcement by the Magi of a “new born king of the Jews” not of the Romans’ choosing. This posed a potential threat to the Romans- but also offered them an opportunity.

Surely, if placed in the same situation, Machiavelli’s fictional Prince would have taken advantage of the turn of events in order both to test the loyalty of Herod and also to compromise him, with the expectation that it might advance future Roman operations. The Prince would have made it known to Herod that such talk by the Magi could lead to “insurrection” and certainly would never be tolerated if an analogous scenario had happened in Rome. Machiavelli’s Prince might go on to suggest that while the decision was Herod’s, Roman authorities would be disappointed with anything other than an exceedingly harsh response.

Given the abovementioned story from Exodus, Roman authorities might also have specifically suggested to Herod that one appropriate response would be to order the blanket massacre of the innocent children in Bethlehem to send the message that Herod’s rule must be respected. The Romans would have had an ulterior motive in pressing for such action: sending the message: “God may have saved the Jews from their Egyptian masters, but things are much different now with Roman masters in charge.”

If such a “suggestion” were proposed by the Romans who installed Herod, there is a good probability that Herod would have ordered the massacre. For one, it suited his own goal of securing his power. Moreover, Herod surely knew that those who enthroned him as king also had the ability to remove him from power if they elected to do so.

Supposing this above scenario actually did play out, one might question why the Gospel of Matthew would have omitted the role of the Roman authorities. Here is the progression as it reads:

Matthew 2:12-16 And having been warned by God in a dream not to return to Herod, they (the magi) departed for their country by another way. Now when they had departed, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, ‘Arise and take the child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to destroy Him.’

And he arose and took the Child and His mother by night and they departed for Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod, that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, “Out of Egypt did I call My Son.”

Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its environs, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the magi.”

To be clear, the story as written would remain true since the command itself would have been issued by Herod. And recall:

John 21:25 “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written.”

While this verse from the Gospel of John specifies acts of Jesus, one might also interpret it broadly to mean that some details of the stories associated with Jesus might be omitted from the text of the Gospel.

In the case of the massacre ordered by Herod, one should first bear in mind the enormity of the power of the Roman Empire, which at the time of Christ stretched throughout all the Mediterranean and beyond. Spreading the Gospel was very dangerous, even without inclusion of a story fragment which directly accused the Roman authorities of such a dastardly deed. Its inclusion may have triggered a far broader and violent effort on the part of the Romans to eliminate the early apostles and end Christianity as a movement. Second, such an accusation would have been outside the experience of many of those who lived under the Roman authorities. As a result of the pragmatism of the Romans in working toward their empire-building aspirations, they used methods which led many of those they governed to view them neutrally-and some even favorably. For those who believed that a different form of government might be the same or even worse than their Roman governance, it would have been far easier to envision that a rogue king of an unfamiliar ethnic group might order such a horrific crime-the murder of infants. They would have been far less likely to believe that the Romans pressed King Herod to order the massacre of the innocents. In modern vernacular, one might phrase an account which vilified the Romans rather than Herod as falling outside the Overton Window for many potential listeners to the Gospel within the Roman Empire.

Gallery O

One painter who depicted the scene brought about by Herod’s order was Jacopo Robusti (1518-1594), described (and one might say, dismissed) by Anthony Blunt as a “mannerist”. Robusti is better known by a different name. His work The Massacre of the Innocents was lauded here by John Ruskin ( https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29906/29906-h/29906-h.htm#page179 § 21. The Massacre of innocents) shortly after Ruskin critiques the interpretation of the scene by Raffaele:

(Ruskin): “I have before alluded, Sect. I. Chap. XIV., to the painfulness of Raffaelle’s treatment of the massacre of the innocents. Fuseli affirms of it that, “in dramatic gradation he disclosed all the mother through every image of pity and of terror.” If this be so, I think the philosophical spirit has prevailed over the imaginative. The imagination never errs, it sees all that is, and all the relations and bearings of it, but it would not have confused the mortal frenzy of maternal terror with various development of maternal character. Fear, rage, and agony, at their utmost pitch, sweep away all character: humanity itself would be lost in maternity, the woman would become the mere personification of animal fury or fear. For this reason all the ordinary representations of this subject are, I think, false and cold: the artist has not heard the shrieks, nor mingled with the fugitives, he has sat down in his study to twist features methodically, and philosophize over insanity. Not so Tintoret. Knowing or feeling, that the expression of the human face was in such circumstances not to be rendered, and that the effort could only end in an ugly falsehood, he denies himself all aid from the features, he feels that if he is to place himself or us in the midst of that maddened multitude, there can be no time allowed for watching expression. Still less does he depend on details of murder or ghastliness of death; there is no blood, no stabbing or cutting, but there is an awful substitute for these in the chiaroscuro.

The scene is the outer vestibule of a palace, the slippery marble floor is fearfully barred across by sanguine shadows, so that our eyes seem to become bloodshot and strained with strange horror and deadly vision; a lake of life before them, like the burning seen of the doomed Moabite on the water that came by the way of Edom; a huge flight of stairs, without parapet, descends on the left; down this rush a crowd of women mixed with the murderers; the child in the arms of one has been seized by the limbs, she hurls herself over the edge, and falls head downmost, dragging the child out of the grasp by her weight;—she will be dashed dead in a second: two others are farther in flight, they reach the edge of a deep river,—the water is beat into a hollow by the force of their plunge;—close to us is the great struggle, a heap of the mothers entangled in one mortal writhe with each other and the swords, one of the murderers dashed down and crushed beneath them, the sword of another caught by the blade and dragged at by a woman’s naked hand; the youngest and fairest of the women, her child just torn away from a death grasp and clasped to her breast with the grip of a steel vice, falls backwards helplessly over the heap, right on the sword points; all knit together and hurled down in one hopeless, frenzied, furious abandonment of body and soul in the effort to save. Their shrieks ring in our ears till the marble seems rending around us, but far back, at the bottom of the stairs, there is something in the shadow like a heap of clothes. It is a woman, sitting quiet,—quite quiet—still as any stone, she looks down steadfastly on her dead child, laid along on the floor before her, and her hand is pressed softly upon her brow.”

Some have pointed out that the pseudonym “Tintoret” used by John Ruskin in reference to Jacopo Robusti resembles the word “tintore” which means “dyer” or “dye maker” in Italian. Interestingly, Anthony Blunt uses a different pseudonym: “Tintoretto” which can be translated as “dyer’s son” or “dye maker’s son”. See (https://www.abirpothi.com/tintoretto-the-venetian-dyers-boy-who-became-an-art-legend and https://goong.com/word/dyer_meaning/ ).

Anthony Blunt mentions the artist whom he calls “Tintoretto” on only five occasions in his book, first published in 1940. Despite John Ruskin’s lavish praise of The Massacre of the Innocents, the Communist Blunt fails to mention the painting explicitly. However, Blunt does allude to the painting in a very subtle way.

Blunt’s first mention (p. 83) simply describes “Tintoretto” as a Mannerist among a group of other painters. It eventually becomes clear that Anthony Blunt views Mannerists with disdain, as he described later painters as such, “Their great work was that they brought painting back to the imitation of nature after the wanderings of the Mannerists.”

The second mention (p. 85) quotes an artist (Paolo Pino) stating that, “(I)f Titian and Michelangelo could have combined their talents, they would have made the perfect artist”, before adding, “This is an idea which constantly appears in later Mannerist writings, and it is also reported as a maxim of Tintoretto.”

The third occasion Blunt mentions “Tintoretto” is in the context of other painters (Paul Veronese) having faced the Inquisitors who objected to the introduction of extraneous details not mentioned in Biblical stories ( “dogs, dwarfs, a fool with a parrot, men armed in a German manner, and servant whose nose is bleeding”) into religious paintings. A group described as “The Counter-Reformers”, including the Inquisitors, objected to such additions. Blunt groups Tintoretto in with the Inquisitors:

“Certain painters, like Tintoretto absorbed the new ideas and their paintings are filled with the turbulent spirituality of the Counter-Reformers, but they were a minority.”

The fourth time Blunt mentions “Tintoretto” is in a footnote on page 125 where he states, “…it is enough to recall Tintoretto’s motto, ‘Il design di Michelangelo, e il colorito de Tiziano.’”

Anthony Blunt’s translation of this (alleged) motto is spelled out in his fifth mention of Tintoretto, which just happens to be on the very last page of his book. Blunt states: “…Tintoretto, who aimed at combining the colour of Titian and the drawing of Michelangelo…”

This combination leads directly to Massacre of the Innocents, as follows. Michelangelo drew “The Massacre of the Innocents” (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michelangelo_-_The_Massacre_of_the_Innocents,_1859,0625.566.jpg ), and Titian is famous for having developed a unique range of color known as “Titian Red”, which even today is available as a choice in painting and labeled on color wheels. One admirer of Titian stated his development of the color thusly: “In the world of art history, the vibrant red hues that characterize the works of Venetian master Titian have long been a subject of fascination and speculation.” (https://associationofresearch.org/the-fungal-source-of-Titians-rich-reds/)

Given the context, one may perceive that Anthony Blunt is less interested in the specific shade of color than the connation of the word “red” being associated with the blood of the Jewish infants who were massacred under the order by King Herod. At last we arrive at the difference between “Tintoret”, used by Ruskin in reference to Jacopo Robusti… and “Tintoretto”, the pseudonym used by Anthony Blunt.

In previous The Way Out substack articles, several instances of the use of the combination “t” and “o” have been identified as representing “Christians and their children.” To name just a few examples:

1. The play attributed to Samuel Beckett, “Waiting for Godot” can be translated as “Waiting for God, Christians and their children”. (The play suggests that there is no end to “waiting for God”.)

2. The reference to “kleptomaniacs” by Bernard Pares in his discussion of the Brothers Karamazov is translated as “clip-Christians-and-their-children maniacs” as he surreptitiously describes “the Bernards” rather than the main characters of Dostoyevsky’s novel. (Learn to Decode , Part 3, referenced above)

3. Several references of “to” and also “ot” meaning “Christians and their children” in the summary of the of the General Slocum disaster. (also Learn to Decode , Part 3, referenced above)

4. The letter allegedly written by Nashville Covenant School shooter included ‘to’ in combinations which suggest “Christians and their children, as noted in https://thewayout.substack.com/learn-to-decode-part-1-nashvilles ).

Here, the “wicked” Communist Anthony Blunt chose to alter Jacopo Robusti’s pseudonym from the “Tintoret” used by John Ruskin by adding the suffix “to”, leading to “Tintoretto”. The significance of this change can be understood in two ways.

First, with reference to the painting Massacre of the Innocents, it extends the massacre of Jewish infants to include “Christians and their children”. Russia (and what is now Ukraine) of the early 20^th Century provides a clear illustration of the evil at play: pogroms against the Jews were followed by the execution of the (Christian) Romanov family by the Communist Bolsheviks. Bear in mind that Anthony Blunt’s book was first published in 1940, only 23 years after the Bolshevik Revolution.

Second, consider that Tintoret in English means “dye maker” and “Tintoretto” means “dye maker’s son”. Homonyms of the same phrases lead to “Die, Maker!” and “Die, Maker’s Son!” where “Maker” can be interpreted as “God”. We might imagine that the two phrases temporally might refer to the destruction of the Temple of King Solomon by the Babylonians in 586 BC (Die, Maker!) and the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in AD 70 (Die, Maker’s Son!). Or alternatively, we might may envision the Roman destruction of the Second Temple (of the Jews) as symbolizing the command “Die, Maker!” while the destruction of Christianity-sought by Communists -and the Illuminati who guard closely their intentions- as “Die, Maker’s Son!”

The parallel meanings drawn from the simple addition of “to” would surely have motivated certain “men of letters” to seek out-or to fabricate- a reference to the pseudonym “Tintoretto” somewhere within the history of Jacopo Robusti and establish it “truth”. Despite the pre-eminence of John Ruskin’s work, one will be hard-pressed to find the use of “Tintoret” as Jacopo Robusti’s pseudonym in English these days. Anthony Blunt’s “Tintoretto” is far more common. Ask any “Artificial Intelligence” model, and there will doubtless be a rationale for this change, accompanied with “compelling reasons”, which are likely to be “artificial”.

There is an interesting commonality among Patrick McCaughey, Robert Burns Motherwell III, and Anthony Blunt. They were all positioned to influence departments of art and history in institutions of higher learning which were-and remain- among the most highly respected in the world. In turn, these men were in position to control what is understood to be truth.

One of the most essential messages found in the Bible is found in John 18:38 when Pontius Pilate says to Jesus, “What is truth?” Taken in context, it was understood to be a rhetorical question. Those who control what is perceived as “truth” control everything. And clearly, the “Bernard Ashmoles” of today’s world are intent on using their invented “truth” to impose upon us a “New World Order”- which is actually a very “Old World Order”- the Master-Slave system.

(End)

1 (video of script available at end of article)

Chapter 1: The 100-year ‘delta’ of William J. Burns

In January 2021, US President Joe Biden selected William J. Burns to be the Director of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Director Burns was widely described as exceptionally well qualified for the position of CIA Director, with an extensive background in diplomacy (e.g., given by https://www.insaonline.org/detail-pages/person/william-j.-burns ):

“Ambassador Burns retired from the State Department U.S. Foreign Service in 2014 before becoming president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is a crisis-tested public servant who spent his 33-year diplomatic career working to keep Americans safe and secure. Prior to his tenure as Deputy Secretary of State, he served as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs from 2008 to 2011; U.S. Ambassador to Russia from 2005 to 2008; Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs from 2001 to 2005; and U.S. Ambassador to Jordan from 1998 to 2001. Amb. Burns was also Executive Secretary of the State Department and Special Assistant to former Secretaries of State Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright; Minister-Counselor for Political Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow; Acting Director and Principal Deputy Director of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff; and Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs at the National Security Council.”

Several months later, in August 2021, multiple US media outlets reported that CIA Director William J. Burns had flown to Kabul Afghanistan and met for a meeting the Taliban’s de facto leader which took place on 23 August 2021. (per https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/cia-director-william-burns-held-secret-meeting-in-kabul-with-taliban-leader/ ) Regrettably, and without herein assigning any blame on Director Burns, the meeting preceded the widely criticized evacuation operation of US military, which many describe as “unacceptable”, “disgraceful” and “shameful” (https://nypost.com/2021/08/30/disgraceful-shameful-republican-outrage-after-biden-ends-pullout/ ).

In a rather astonishing coincidence, 100 years earlier, the day of 23 August 1921 corresponded to the first full day of service as the “Director of the Bureau of Investigation” of a man who also happened to be named William J. Burns (https://www.fbi.gov/history/directors/william-j-burns ):

“As a young man, Mr. Burns performed well as a Secret Service agent and parleyed his reputation into the William J. Burns International Detective Agency. A combination of good casework and an instinct for publicity made Mr. Burns a national figure. His exploits made national news, the gossip columns of New York newspapers, and the pages of detective magazines, in which he published ‘true’ crime stories based on his exploits.

Well qualified to direct the Bureau and friends with Warren Harding’s Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty, Burns was appointed Director of the Bureau of Investigation on August 22, 1921. Under Mr. Burns, the Bureau shrank from its 1920 high of 1,127 personnel to around 600 three years later. He resigned in 1924 at the request of Attorney General Harlan Fiske Stone because of his role in the Teapot Dome Scandal. This scandal involved the secret leasing of naval oil reserve lands to private companies.

Mr. Burns retired to Florida and published detective and mystery stories based on his long career for several years. He died in Sarasota, Florida in April 1932.”

In some quarters, this apparently coincidental correspondence in dates might be described as a ‘100-year delta’. It is perhaps another coincidence that the ‘Delta variant’ of Covid-19 was also at its height in August of 2021.

One of the interesting facts about former CIA Director Burns is that (per the same reference as above):

“He earned a bachelor’s degree in history from LaSalle University and master’s and doctoral degrees in international relations from Oxford University, where he studied as a Marshall Scholar.”

Carroll Quigley, author of The Anglo-American Establishment, published in 1981 held the opinion that the immensely wealthy British magnate Cecil Rhodes wanted to establish a ‘secret society’ of ‘men of ability […] Rhodes envisages a group of the ablest and best [..]. This is to be a kind of religious brotherhood like the Jesuits, ‘a church for the extension of the British Empire.’”

To this end, Cecil Rhodes established what became known as the Rhodes Scholarship Program. Rhodes also formed a group informally known as “Milner’s Kindergarten”, led by Sir Alfred Milner. Even though others contend that Rhodes moderated his views in the years prior to his death in 1902, Quigley suggests the overall goals of Rhodes were unaltered and quotes the 1877 version of the will of Cecil Rhodes as follows:

“British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom and of colonization by British subjects of all lands wherein the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour, and enterprise... the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of a British Empire, the consolidation of the whole Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial Representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire, and finally the foundation of so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote the interests of humanity.”

Regarding the Rhodes Scholarships, Quigley states (p. 34):

“Dr. Aydelotte’s assumption that the scholarships were an alternative to the secret society is quite untenable, for all the evidence indicates that the scholarships were but one of several instruments through which the society would work. In 1894, Stead discussed with Rhodes how the secret society would work and wrote about it after Rhodes’s death as follows: ‘We also discussed together various projects for propaganda, the formation of libraries, the creation of lectureships, the dispatch of emissaries on missions of propaganda throughout the Empire, and the steps to be taken to pave the way for the foundation and the acquisition of a newspaper which was to be devoted to the service of the cause.’ This is an exact description of the way in which the society, that is the Milner Group, had functioned. Moreover, when Rhodes talked with Stead, in January 1895, about the scholarships at Oxford, he did not abandon the society but continued to speak of it as the real power behind the scholarships. It is perfectly clear that Rhodes omitted mentioning the secret society in his last two wills because he knew that by that time he was so famous that the one way to keep a society from being secret would be to mention it in his will.”

Quigley also describes (p. 191) the Council on Foreign Relations with the following context:

“Chatham House had close institutional relations with a number of other organizations, especially in the Dominions. It also has a parallel organization, which was regarded as a branch, in New York. This latter, the Council on Foreign Relations, was not founded by the American group that attended the meeting at the Hotel Majestic in 1919, but was taken over almost entirely by that group immediately after its founding in 1919. This group was made up of the experts on the American delegation to the (1919) Peace Conference who were most closely associated with J.P. Morgan and Company. The Morgan branch has never made any real effort to conceal its position in regard to the Council on Foreign Relations.”

It is worth mentioning that in his preface, Carroll Quigley himself expressed his “overall agreement with the goals and aims of the Milner group”, adding:

“I feel the British way of life and the British Commonwealth of Nations are among the greatest achievements of all history.”

Furthermore, Professor Quigley was praised by former US Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi in a speech given in 2002 at Georgetown University School of Foreign Service (SFS):

“This university is important to all of us because it is an outstanding institution of academic freedom. I have had a long appreciation of the contribution of the SFS to knowledge and wisdom in our country. It also personally important to me because my husband and three of my children are Hoyas. My daughter Christine is a graduate of SFS, Class of 1988. In fact, I met my husband Paul here while we both took a summer school class at SFS called ‘The History of Africa, South of the Sahara,’ taught by the legendary Dr. Carroll Quigley. John F. Kennedy was President then and it was an exciting time. [..]

When I took that class at Georgetown so long ago, Professor Quigley taught us something I will never forget. He said that America is the greatest country in the history of the world because our people have always believed in two things: that tomorrow can be better than today, and that every one of us has a personal, moral responsibility to make it so.”

(https://archive.ph/2021.08.13-100334/https://pelosi.house.gov/sites/pelosi.house.gov/files/pressarchives/releases/prGeorgetown051802.htm )

And in his 1992 acceptance speech, President Bill Clinton, himself a Rhodes Scholar, likewise praised and quoted Carroll Quigley:

“As a teenager I heard John Kennedy’s summons to citizenship. And then, as a student at Georgetown, I heard that call clarified by a professor named Carroll Quigley, who said to us that America was the greatest nation in history because our people had always believed in two great ideas: that tomorrow can be better than today, and that every one of us has a personal moral responsibility to make it so.”

(https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/19920717/1502595/a-new-covenant----excerpts-from-bill-clintons-acceptance-speech )

As indicated by the Oxford University Master’s and PhD, the Marshall Scholarship awarded to former CIA Director Burns shares many traits of the Rhodes Scholarship program. The prestige of a Marshall Scholarship often leads to future success in many different career fields. For example, Reid Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn was a Marshall Scholar, as was current Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Lisa Cook, and former Harvard dean and mathematics professor Benedict Gross. There are many other examples of individuals successful in business, the arts, academia, law, and in politics- both Republicans and Democrats. This information can be found easily on Wikipedia, which tallies 2,179 individuals awarded Marshall Scholarships between 1954 and 2022.

Lasalle University, located near Philadelphia, PA, is a fine school, but it is exceptionally rare for one of its students to even be endorsed by the school to be a Marshall Scholar. A cursory view of the data through the published reports at the official Marshall Scholarship website ( https://www.marshallscholarships.org/about/about/reports/ ) shows that only 5 Lafayette students were endorsed for the scholarship within the eleven years between 2005 and 2015. Within that time frame, among those endorsed, only about 3 percent were typically selected in any given year to be Marshall Scholars. Clearly, something special must have stood out about former CIA Director William J. Burns when he was selected for a Marshall Scholarship in 1978.

Incidentally, William J. Burns is mentioned several times in the Department of Justice release of the “Epstein files”. One message, dated 11 Sep 2014, well after Epstein had been convicted for child-sex trafficking, includes his scheduled meetings from 11-30 Sep 2014. Jeffrey Epstein’s schedule included meetings with Ariane de Rothschild and Boris Nikolic on September 11^th and with a private meeting with Bill Burns two days later on 13 September 2014, followed by a dinner with Woody Allen, Kathy Ruemmler, and Peter Thiel. ( https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00363093.pdf )

Lest there be any doubt, given that “Bill Burns” is a rather common name, that the CIA Director under President Biden was the man who met with Jeffrey Epstein, a message dated 9 September 2014 sent from Jeffrey Epstein to Peter Thiel should erase any doubt. (https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00996779.pdf ) In it, Jeffrey Epstein states “13th afternoon you and I . then bill bums . the diplmats diplomat. eyeing dinner with woody all casual. . if you choose we can bring in kathy ruemmler. former obama counsel for 5 years. and or sen Bob kerrey, former senate intellignece.” (spelling and capitalization errors are common in Epstein’s messages).

Chapter 2: Creation of the Incredible Detective

As for the man, also named William J. Burns, who was named Director of the Bureau of Investigation in 1921, his amazing exploits were described in a series of McClure’s Magazine articles from 1910 through 1912. For example, the May-October 1911 (Vol. 37) edition (at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.78057779&seq=7 ) provides three stories expanding upon the amazing exploits of William J. Burns: ‘The Dynamiters’, ‘Promoter of Counterfeits’, and ‘Ulrich: A Soldier of Fortune’.

These stories from McClure’s and several others were compiled in a book titled, Incredible Detective: The Biography of William J. Burns, authored by a writer named Gene Caesar, and published in 1968.

Incredible Detective begins with a story titled, ‘The Making of a Supersleuth’.

“The year was 1899. The Boer War had just begun in South Africa. And in Washington DC, a most unnerving note turned up in the morning mail of Lord Julian Pauncefote, the British Ambassador to the United States. Bearing a Detroit, Michigan, postmark but neither name nor return address, the printed message was brief and explicit: Unless Great Britain gave up its aggression against the Transvaal and the Orange Free State immediately, the anonymous writer was coming to Washington to put a bullet through Lord Pauncefote’s head. [..]

(Secretary of State John) Hay promised, ‘I’ll put one of my best men on it.’ [..]

Ambassador Pauncefote found it difficult to concentrate that day and even more difficult to sleep the night that followed. He called Secretary of State John Hay the next morning but found little assurance in Hay’s assurance that the Secret Service was already hard at work on the matter. [..]

The British ambassador had another uneasy day to endure and another restless night. But then, to his amazement, the Secretary of State brought him the news that the threatening letter-writer was in custody.

‘How?’ the ambassador gasped. ‘How could he possibly have been found in just two days? There wasn’t a thing in the note to identify him.’”

How, indeed?

The story continues that, William J. Burns was able to intuit that the note must have been written by a telegrapher.

“‘The printing on this note was a dead giveaway’, Burns explained.

‘But it’s such a simple style of printing,’ the ambassador protested. ‘It’s crude, in fact. The T’s are only half-crossed, and it’s all in capital letters. There are no flourishes of any sort.’

‘That’s just it,’ Burns said, ‘Everything is too simple.’”

Indeed. William J. Burns was in New York City when the assignment was given to him. He ‘caught the next train for Detroit’ and within two days had not only confirmed that a telegrapher had crafted the message but also had determined which telegrapher it was. Moreover, the very man William J. Burns discerned to have written the death threat willingly confessed his crime within a day.

Naturally, one might wonder how much prison time this man served, given that he threatened to murder a sitting British ambassador. Why, as it turned out – none at all.

“(Secretary of State) Hay wondered, did Lord Julian wish to press charges? Or would another note, one of apology, settle the matter?

Ambassador Pauncefote was perfectly willing to accept the apology.”

Apparently, not even a ten-dollar fine was levied against the man who threatened to “put a bullet through Lord Pauncefote’s head”. According to the text of Gene Caesar, William J. Burns was able to convince the ambassador that a letter was sufficient in part through his animated description of the events which took place. William J. Burns is described as “far more suggestive of a successful salesman or even a theatrical personality than a highly skilled detective”. William J. Burns concluded his rendition of the events which took place, as follows:

“…The telegrapher had broken down then, admitting that the printing had been done by one of his men, but protesting that the fellow was just a blustering old Dutchman who really wouldn’t put a bullet into anyone. After arresting and questioning the suspect, whose accent afforded an excellent opportunity for some dialect work in the staging of a climactic scene, Burns agreed. Thus the recommendation that the case be closed with a letter of apology.

‘That was all there was to it,’ Burns concluded. ‘The whole thing was just common sense from beginning to end.’

If Lord Julian Pauncefote saw any relation between the ‘just common sense’, of William J. Burns and the ‘Elementary, my dear Watson,’ of the imaginary detective who magazine-story exploits had been thrilling British readers for a dozen years, he was neither the first nor the last. Reporters had made the same comparison after listening to Secret Service Chief Wilkie’s praise of Burns’ work on the Pennsylvania counterfeiting case.”

Is it not remarkable that Detective William J. Burns was able to discern the profession of the man who issued the death threat, based on handwriting analysis alone? In fact, it would seem that he was not only able to travel from New York City to Detroit, solve the crime, identify the perpetrator, and obtain a confession (and apology) within two days.

Truly, it would seem that William J. Burns was indeed an “Incredible Detective”. At this point, I would like to remind the reader that the word ‘incredible’ has multiple meanings. One might expect that Gene Caesar intends our interpretation of the word incredible to mean “wonderful, impressive, and extraordinary.” But the first definition of ‘incredible’ is ‘not credible, or seeming too unusual or improbable to be possible’.

But I do not wish to hasten to a conclusion based on one illustrated case. Let us consider the so-called Pennsylvania counterfeiting case. While Gene Caesar’s book devotes a chapter to the story, some of the details are provided with additional historical context going back to pre-Revolutionary War period in an article accessible at: https://www.inventionandtech.com/content/illegal-tender-0 .

“Illegal Tender: HOW TECHNOLOGY HAS ALWAYS HELPED COUNTERFEITERS—AND THEIR OPPONENTS

By Jack Kelly, Sumer 2005, Vol. 21, Issue 1

[..]

(T)he appearance of a uniform national currency actually encouraged counterfeiters. Because the new notes were backed by the government instead of some possibly shaky bank, users did not examine them with the same care they had applied to state-bank currency. To combat the new wave of counterfeiting, the Treasury Department took the extraordinary measure of hiring agents to hunt down forgers. This was the first real police authority assumed by the federal government.

The Secret Service, founded in July 1865, was at first led by an unscrupulous detective named William P. Wood, a former prison superintendent, who set out to capture counterfeiters and ‘convince such characters’ that they could no longer ‘ply their vocation without being handled roughly.’ Wood was ousted in 1869, and his rough-and-ready band of detectives evolved into a highly effective enemy of counterfeiting. By infiltrating ‘coney’ rings and tracking the sale of printing supplies, they were largely successful in squelching the counterfeiting epidemic by the end of the nineteenth century.

The distinctive paper used for banknotes was one major obstacle to would-be fakers. Going back to the Revolutionary era, the government had ordered papermakers to embed tiny chips of mica and silk fibers in their banknote stock, which could be sold only to authorized buyers. Some notes also had a watermark, a thickness variation incorporated in the paper during manufacturing, which was invented in thirteenth-century Italy. The paper itself was made from a durable combination of cotton and linen, giving it a distinctive feel. [..]

During the 1880s, the counterfeit wars escalated further with the advent of photolithography and photoengraving. These techniques used the photographic process not for making direct copies of money but for creating the plates by which bills could be mass-produced. The lithographic method applied the image of the bill chemically to a stone or a zinc plate. The surface remained smooth, but certain areas accepted ink and others repelled it. Photoengraving was an etching process in which an image was deposited on a plate by photography and then physically cut into it with acids. The result was a plate with raised and lowered areas, like an ordinary engraved printing plate, but done with chemicals.

The master engravers Baldwin Bredell and Arthur Taylor were so adept at these techniques that in the 1890s they were actually able to make a photoengraving plate and print bills in their prison cell, using smuggled tools, chemicals from the prison laundry, extracts from fruits and flowers brought by visitors, and sunlight. At the time, they were awaiting trial for producing copies of $100 bills that were so good that the government had been forced to recall the entire issue upon which they were based. Impressed with their skill, the chief of the Secret Service helped set the men up in legitimate businesses after their release.”

In fact, Bredell and Taylor were the key figures in the ‘Pennsylvania counterfeit case’ investigated by William J. Burns. The passage from Incredible Detective which alleges that William J. Burns was able to intuit that the counterfeit plates and bills while in prison is given below.

In Gene Caesar’s account, newly-discovered counterfeit $20 bills were at the center of the story, and William J. Burns declared:

“‘It is the handiwork of Baldwin Bredell and Arthur Taylor!’

‘Impossible!’ Wilkie replied.”

Gene Caesar goes on to explain that Wilkie and Burns had been certain that all the plates fabricated by Bredell and Taylor were discovered before they entered prison. The reader might reflect how the discovery that any such counterfeiting plates which existed prior to their imprisonment but which escaped notice would have severely harmed the reputation of William J. Burns. If the two prisoners had subsequently been able to use pre-existing plates to bargain for relief in their sentencing, William J. Burns would have looked the part of a fool. To avoid this embarrassment, both to Burns himself and those who promoted his “incredible detective” skills, it was necessary to show that Bredell and Taylor fabricated the plates while in prison.

Because so many attributes of the account are implausible, it is difficult to judge where to begin. This fact is all-but-admitted by Gene Caesar himself who described the post-sentencing experience as a “weird and puzzling aftermath to what had appeared a fully resolved case”.

Consider that Bredell and Taylor were imprisoned at the Moyamensing facility in Philadephia. Gene Caesar’s account (p.78) describes them as “cell mates” and later states that Burns “the cell they occupied” (p. 80). But this would be highly unlikely because the Moyamensing prison model is said to have housed prinsoners based on a ‘system of separate and solitary confinement’ even for those awaiting charges.

https://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/essays/prisons-and-jails/

“…In Philadelphia, Moyamensing, the county facility at Eleventh and East Passyunk Avenue built to replace the Walnut Street Prison, also employed the Pennsylvania system of separate and solitary confinement—in its case, for individuals awaiting trial, along with those serving short sentences. Moyamensing remained the major hub for those facing and serving misdemeanor charges from its opening in 1835 until a second county facility, Holmesburg, opened in 1896. While Moyamensing remained open until 1963, Holmesburg, in northeast Philadelphia, remained open until 1995.”

Would the Pennsylvania prison authorities make an exception to this policy in the instance of Bredell and Taylor? Moreover, why would the prison house two alleged partners-infamous counterfeiters- in crime within the same cell?

Another difficulty was the necessity of taking a high quality picture of the paper currency ($20 bill) in question. Caesar’s story alleges that William J. Burns himself came up with the idea that a pinhole camera might provide the ability to do so. Moreover, he adds that Burns himself later demonstrated the pinhole camera device to the jury in court when Bredell and Taylor were later brought to trial.

To construct a pinhole camera, it is essential that the ‘sunlight’ (mentioned by Jack Kelly) be present for the pinhole camera to have even a remote chance of functioning. Even if we generously allow for the possibility, sunlight passing through a dirty or imperfect window (certainly likely for a prison cell) would have affected the image quality, and thus the quality of the counterfeited currency. Caesar’s account does not even mention whether the jail cell had a window, or (if so) what its size and condition were. Moreover, one might expect only a portion of the windows in the facility to be south-facing as opposed to north-facing. This does not even account for the preposterous notion that a prison guard would somehow overlook prisoners hiding behind a curtain.

“Waiting until Bredell and Taylor were out in the yard for an exercise period, he (Burns) inspected the cell they occupied. He didn’t discover any counterfeiting apparatus, but he did find the cell contained a small alcove and that there were marks on the sides and tops that might well have been made by hanging curtains.

Flipping through the prison register, Burns next learned that the pair had been visited regularly by a Philadelphia lawyer of shady reputation, and by Arthur Taylor’s brother and widowed mother.”

Now consider this portion of Caesar’s account:

“Wilkie wanted to talk to the prisoners themselves. He and Burns went to Philadelphia, picked up US District Attorney Beck, and called on the prison. After hearing Bredell and Taylor tell their story, both Wilkie and Beck came away convinced that the only thing left to do was make a deal for the plates. And both agreed that, wherever the plates engraving had been done, it hadn’t been done in a Moyamensing cell. The inmates were under constant watch in the daytime, they argued, and checked regularly by flashlight-carrying guards through the night.

The point was important. For plates made before their arrest, Bredell and Taylor could make whatever demands they wished with no fear of further punishment. But if they had actually found a way to make photoengraved plates in a prison cell, and it could be proven that they had done this, the threat of stiff, additional second-offense sentences could be held over their heads.”

William J. Burns next sought out to single out Arthur Taylor. He spoke to Taylor in the prison and according to Caesar, implied threats to Taylor’s family.

“Taylor demanded to know what he (Burns) meant.

‘Was it Bredell’s brother who made himself an accessory? Was it his widowed mother who’ll probably go to prison now for trying to help her son?”

Recall that, according to the Jack Kelly article, the Secret Service had a history of ‘convincing such characters’ that they could no longer ‘ply their (counterfeiting) vocation without being handled roughly.’ It would seem a similar tactic worked for William J. Burns.

Caesar’s account suggests that Taylor then persuaded Bredell to submit written statement to William J. Burns himself. The statement told the whereabouts of the engraving plates and the equipment allegedly constructed inside the prison.

“All of the equipment had been smuggled back out (of the prison) the moment the job was done. Along with the plates, it was buried, in all places, in the grave of Taylor’s father. [..]

With a signed statement, the strange case seemed headed for routine conclusion.

But Bredell and Taylor made the mistake of talking to their lawyer again. They decided to repudiate their confessions and stand trial. And when the trial began, they had the full backing of the Moyamensing Penitentiiary authorities, who were furious at being made the laughingstock of the newspapers and vehemently argues that the counterfeiting could not have been made in one of their cells.”

Caesar’s account describes Burns demonstrating the pinhole camera and miniaturized press as being “so dazzling that the jury was convinced to convict the prisoners, with seven more years added to their original 12-year sentences.”

Had Bredell and Taylor served their full sentences, they would have been released in 1918. Yet somehow, Baldwin Bredell was able to secure a patent for his stamping machine on 18 July 1911 with an application filing date of on 2 June 1910. The sophisticated and intricate drawings in application belie the notion that a prisoner prepared and submitted the patent application. Moreover, the opening statement is “Be it know that I, Baldwin S. Bredell, a citizen of the United States, residing at Camden, in the county of Camden and State of New Jersey, have invented…”. (per https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/b7/7e/2f/74c24dfa75b8e1/US998274.pdf ) Why would Gene Caesar omit this important detail from his book, which was published decades later?

To be sure, it is worth considering the myriad of other significant obstacles to making engraving plates (and bills) in prison, such as chemicals and appropriate paper.

Let me offer an alternative explanation to both of these far-fetched stories:

Ruthless and powerful entities wanted to place William J. Burns in a key position within the US Secret Service. The threatening letter sent to Ambassador Pauncefote was carried out with the full knowledge that the ‘angry Dutchman’ was merely playing a role and would not be punished for what would ordinarily be considered a serious crime. Burns knew who the perpetrator was at the outset and carried out his theatrical role.

The appearance of counterfeit $20 bills after the imprisonment of Bredell and Taylor shortly thereafter was an obstacle to this goal of placing ‘their man Burns’ in a position of influence within the Secret Service. Therefore, these powerful entities threatened to murder Taylor’s family unless he confessed and convinced Bredell to confess also. The case had no merit as the prison authorities were able to demonstrate to anyone reasonable person. The demonstrations by William J. Burns were irrelevant theater. Rather, these wealthy and powerful people who wanted Burns to have an impeccable reputation as a detective bought off-or threatened- the jury and gained the conviction.

Chapter 3: Are paintings said to be those of the Dutch Master Johannes Vermeer the work of Charles F. Ulrich, the ‘greatest counterfeiter the world ever knew’?

A third story of the exploits of William J. Burns, given by Gene Caesar in Incredible Detective, is a retelling of a McClure’s Magazine May-October 1911 (Vol. 37) edition article titled “Detective Burns’ Great Cases, Ulrich: A Soldier of Fortune” accessible at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.78057779&seq=63 .

It opens by quoting Burns himself:

“Did I ever tell you about Charley Ulrich?” Burns asked. “Charles F. Ulrich was the greatest counterfeiter the world ever knew until the advent of Taylor and Bredell at Philadelphia.”

Burns is quoted, laying out the progression of Ulrich’s life in the McClure’s article:

“Ulrich came to this country (US) from Germany in 1853. He was a raw young German then, but a real artist. [..] He was a gentlemanly fellow, and his principal fault was that he was the best counterfeiter that ever lived. [..] After he landed in New York he soon became known as a very talented artist. It was not long before his work caused considerable comment among steel-engravers. They called him the ‘young Dutchman.’

A counterfeiter named Jim Colbert put a shadow put a shadow on Charley and, finding where he lunched, sat at the same table. He finally got well enough acquainted with him to take him to the theater and show him about the town. At last he induced him to engrave a State bank note, having convinced him that there was a fortune in it. Charley did fine work on the note, but they were both caught and sent to prison for a short term. When the Crimean War was just on, and, falling in with some English recruiting officers, he enlisted in the English army. Charley went to England and joined what was known as the British Foreign Legion, from which he and a few others were selected, on account of their superior bodily and mental equipment, as cavalrymen in the famous body known as the Light Brigade, and he was in the celebrated charge at Balaklava, immortalized by Tennyson.

He was struck over the head with a musket by a Russian soldier, his skull was crushed, and he was bayoneted in the side. He was left for dead on the field; but thirty-six hours after, when the English came on the ground, they found him still alive.”

It struck me as noteworthy, and perhaps a bit unusual, that Charles F. Ulrich would join the British Foreign Legion after immigrating from his home in Germany to the United States. Naturally, the famous story of the Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava suggested that few of those involve in the ill-fated charge survived. So I sought confirmation that Charles F. Ulrich was among the surviving battle participants. To my (feigned) surprise, his name is not listed among the participants in the very thorough documentation compiled at:

https://www.chargeofthelightbrigade.com/allmen/allmenU/indexallmenU.html

In the telling of William J. Burns, Charles F. Ulrich subsequently relocated “after his recovery” returning to the United States:

Charley became acquainted with Jim Courtney through a couple of German girls, Kate Gross and Mary Braun, both criminals and associates of counterfeiters. Courtney persuaded Charley to leave New York and go with him to Cincinnati. [..]”

Burns then weaves the story a series of betrayals by partners in crime landing him in the penitentiary in Columbus, Ohio. But then a turn of fortune came about through an admirer, Col. Innis not only led to a pardon from President Rutherford B. Hayes, but also a job at an engraving shop. By a remarkable coincidence, William J. Burns encountered Ulrich:

“I was a boy living in Columbus then, and used to watch him go up and down the street, for I’d heard his history and it fascinated me. At times I used to go over to see him, and I little dreamed then how much I was to see of him later.”

Sure enough, as the story unfolds, Burns himself was later assigned by the Secret Service to track Ulrich’s activities in Cincinnati, Ohio. Burns then claims he faked taking a job and rented an apartment with his wife as cover across the street. As Burns relates:

“I went to Cincinnati and found out where he was living. [..]

Charley and his wife watched me each morning as I went to work, and Mrs. Burns watched them. About the fifth morning they did not watch any more. [..] An old friend, a woman living on Vine Street, received his mail for him, and he’d walk around there and get it.”

Burns eventually describes Ulrich participating in more counterfeiting activities, and subsequently being caught and interviewed by Burns. William J. Burns then tells of how he was able to ‘flip’ Charles F. Ulrich, which led to the conviction of several of his partners in crime (members of The Brockway Gang).

The story, published in 1911, concludes with this passage:

“To go back to Charley, I must say that he played square with me. As a matter of fact, I became very much attached to him. He stayed close to me, because he knew that was his best protection against his former friends. I took him with me down to Florida, where I had to investigate some Cuban filibuster cases. He lived an honest life from this time on until his death about three years ago.

So there you have Charley Ulrich’s story. He was a fellow of wonderful talent, and one of the best counterfeiters in history. If he had turned his skill and ability to any honest business, he might have gone far in the world. With all his cleverness, he’d taken the worst possible way of ‘making money’.”

Many elements of the story is repeated in a recent story focused on the history of Ulrich in Cincinnati, and a parenthetical detail caught my attention.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220313073727/https://eu.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/03/12/charles-ulrich-cincinnati-history-most-expert-counterfeiter-the-world/9452278002/

“Charles Frederick Ulrich was born in 1835 in Westphalia, Germany. (He is not to be confused with the American painter by the same name, one of Frank Duveneck’s circle of artists in Germany.)”

Given that the “Incredible Detective” William J. Burns also happened to have the same name as President Biden’s CIA Director, I found this fact to be an interesting double-coincidence. One might also consider the similarity of the names of British historian Bernard Pares and literary critic Bernard Paris, who happened to produce books roughly one century apart (see http://thewayout.substack.com/p/learn-to-decode-part-3-an-act-of ).

Naturally, I investigated the painter Charles F. Ulrich, taking note that even his middle initial matched the counterfeiter described by Burns (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Frederic_Ulrich ):

“Charles Frederic Ulrich (18 October 1858 – 15 May 1908) was an American Realist painter who spent most of his career in Germany. [..]

Between 1879 and 1881, Ulrich was back in the United States, where he made a study of the methods used by artists during the Golden Age of Dutch painting; especially the interiors of Pieter de Hooch and Jan Vermeer and the portraits of Frans Hals and Anthony van Dyck. In 1883, he was named an Associate Member of his alma mater, the National Academy, and a full member of the Society of American Artists. [..]

In the summer of 1884, Ulrich returned to Europe; travelling with William Merritt Chase and Robert Frederick Blum. They visited Belgium and the Netherlands. Ulrich and Blum shared an apartment in Haarlem. They were together for much of the next three years. Blum concentrated on scenes from everyday life, while Ulrich continued to focus on social commentary; including paintings done from sketches made in an orphanage. [..]

Ulrich died of pneumonia in Berlin in 1908.”

It struck me that William J. Burns was quoted as saying that of the counterfeiter Charles F. Ulrich “He lived an honest life until his death about three years ago” in the account published in McClure’s Magazine in 1911, which would have placed the counterfeiter’s death in “about 1908”… just like the painter. Yet another coincidence, perhaps?

And from https://maryrangallery.com/charles-frederick-ulrich , the methods of Charles F. Ulrich are described as follow:

“Ulrich became dedicated to a realist approach, influenced by the circle of German realists who gathered around Wilhelm Leibl, an artist who followed in the mode of Gustave Courbet. By contrast with other Americans, such as Frank Duveneck and Frank Currier, who adhered to the painterly bravura approach that Leibl pioneered in the early 1870s, Ulrich developed a fastidious method of painting that reflected his study of the works of the old masters and of the seventeenth-century Dutch Little Masters.”

The painter Ulrich’s apartment-mate in the Netherlands from roughly 1884-1887 was said to be Robert Frederick Blum (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Frederick_Blum ):

“Robert Frederick Blum (9 July 1857 – 8 June 1903) was an American artist. [..] Blum was born in Cincinnati, Ohio. He was employed for a time in a lithographic shop. He studied at the McMicken Art School of Design in Cincinnati and at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts in Philadelphia, but he was practically self-taught, and early on showed great and original talent.

He settled in New York City in 1879, doing his first work there for Charles Scribner’s Sons, and the next year travelled to Venice, where he executed pen drawings and watercolours. After 1880, he made many annual trips to Europe. He returned to Venice in 1881 and in 1882 he visited Toledo and Madrid. In 1884 he visited the Netherlands. He visited Japan in 1890 and spent three years there; he had been interested in that country and its art for many years. [..]

Blum’s chief patron, Alfred Corning Clark, heir to the Singer Sewing Machine fortune, commissioned twin canvasses, 50 feet long and 12 feet high, for the proscenium of Mendelssohn Hall in downtown New York, which he had constructed to house the famous Mendelssohn Glee Club. The first of these, finished in 1895, was entitled Music and the Dance (originally Moods of Music) and is considered Blum’s most important work. The other, The Feast of Bacchus, was modeled on a painting of the same title that Blum had sent to Clark as a gift in 1888, but was not completed until after Clark’s death in 1896. These works went missing when the Hall was demolished in 1912, but were later found in the vaults of the Brooklyn Museum, which put them on temporary display for the 100th anniversary of the Glee Club in 1966.

Robert Frederick Blum died of pneumonia at his home at 90 Grove Street, New York City on 8 June 1903.”

Does it seem yet another odd coincidence that both Charles Ulrich and Robert Blum died young of pneumonia – Ulrich at age 49 and Blum at age 45? Does it seem a coincidence that Robert Blum was born in Cincinnati, the same place that the alleged counterfeiter (and Charge of the Light Brigade participant) Charles F. Ulrich was spied upon by William J. Burns?

Another thought which occurred to me is that there is considerable overlap in the skill set required to produce counterfeit paper currency and counterfeit paintings. The Time magazine archives reveal that the artwork of Jan Vermeer was embroiled in controversy in the year 1928 (per https://time.com/archive/6661848/art-vermeer-controversy/ ):

January 23, 1928:

“To many connoisseurs the question, ‘Is it a good painting?’ does not occur until they have asked, ‘Is it genuine?’ Last week such connoisseurs took note, with panic or delight, of a controversy which concerned a painting called The Guitar Player, executed long ago by famed Jan Vermeer der Delft; a painting of a young girl seated in a diffused golden light, her fingers quiet upon silent strings. One Guitar Player was bought in London in 1896 by John G. Johnson and has reposed, since his death, with the rest of his collection in his Philadelphia house. Last week, British connoisseurs who viewed the collection of Lord Iveagh, shown to the public in London last week, discovered another Guitar Player, very similar to the Guitar Player in the Johnson collection. This, they said with one accord, was the genuine Vermeer; the painting in the U. S. was a replica, a copy, an imitation, anything except the original Guitar Player by Jan Vermeer der Delft.

The curious death of Jan Vermeer der Delft has in some part, been responsible for recent arguments about his works. A popular young painter, it was his misfortune to have lived in Delft in a studio near the site of a powder magazine. This, one disastrous day in 1675, exploded, removing all trace of Jan Vermeer, together with the majority of his works. In the excitement of losing so much good gunpowder, it was possible for people to forget the loss of an artist. The few of his paintings, about 40, which were not destroyed, remained obscure until 1871 when they came to the attention of one Thore-Burger, an intelligent connoisseur. Noting the brilliant detail, the warm true precision, the clear light which was poured into them like gold, he brought the paintings of Jan Vermeer to public attention by buying many of them for himself.

Since that time, due to their beauty and their scarcity, Vermeers have brought large prices from dealers. The 200-year period in which no attention was paid them has naturally caused arguments to arise as to the authenticity of some. Hitherto, the Johnson Guitar Player has been unanimously regarded as genuine. It is still so regarded by many able American collectors & connoisseurs.”

Nearly a century later, in September 2025, the same unsettled question arose (per https://news.artnet.com/art-world/vermeer-double-vision-2682920 ):

“Is This a Real Vermeer? London Show Reopens Century-Old Mystery: For the first time in over 300 years, Vermeer’s ‘Guitar Player’ has been reunited with its enigmatic doppelgänger.

by Jo Lawson-Tancred, September 1, 2025

With only 37 paintings confidently attributed to Vermeer, he remains one of art history’s most elusive painters. The tantalizing possibility of growing this number, even by one, has long stirred debate around a particularly mysterious painting of a girl playing the guitar at the Philadelphia Museum of Art (PMA). It is almost an exact replica of Vermeer’s The Guitar Player (1672), raising the question of whether it may also have been painted by the legendary Dutch master. A new exhibition in London invites the public to decide for themselves.

For the first time in over 300 years, the two paintings are being displayed side-by-side at Kenwood House, home of the undisputed London painting, thanks to a historic loan from the PMA. “Double Vision: Vermeer at Kenwood” opens today and runs through January 11, 2026, marking 350 years since Vermeer’s death in 1675.

Art historians have been debating since the 1920s why the PMA’s painting was created if it isn’t an exact copy of the London version. While visitors will note plenty of similarities in the two paintings, some obvious differences will also jump out. The foremost of these is the lack of hanging ringlets on the girl’s head in the Philadelphia painting, which also has a different treatment of light and shade. Crucially, the London painting is signed by Vermeer—while the PMA’s painting is not.

“It is an arresting experience to come face to face with a masterpiece by Vermeer, let alone to see its near doppelgänger beside it,” said Wendy Monkhouse, English Heritage’s senior curator at Kenwood. “It is a remarkable painting with wonderful details, from the painting within a painting on the wall, the table laden with books and folds of luxurious blue fabric, to the translucent pearls around the sitter’s neck which catch the light.”

Experts have long struggled to make sense of the enigmatic replica, as comparing the two paintings is complicated by their vastly different conditions: the London version is among Vermeer’s best-preserved works, retaining much of its original integrity, while the Philadelphia version shows significant wear, including damage from earlier, mishandled cleaning efforts.”

An account of the rediscovery of the Jan Vermeer paintings discusses a years-long gap between the death of Théophile Thoré-Bürger and the auction by his family. This time period includes the 1884-1887 time period when Ulrich and Blum were living together in the Netherlands.

https://www.vermeerdelft.nl/en/blogs/theophile-thore-buerger-the-rediscoverer-of-vermeer

“In the 1860s, Thoré bought his first Vermeer, Woman Playing the Virginal, now on display at the National Gallery in London. In June 1866, the French painter, draughtsman and lithographer Henry Grevedon sold Thoré-Bürger Woman with a Pearl Necklace, now on display at the Gemäldegalerie in Berlin. In 1867, Thoré-Bürger paid 2,000 francs for The Seated Virginal Player. It is not known from whom he purchased this work. The Seated Virginal Player has been in the possession of The National Gallery in London since 1910.

Théophile Thoré-Bürger died in 1869, but his extensive art collection remained in the possession of his family, particularly the Lacroix family. It was not until 23 years after his death, on 5 December 1892, that the collection was auctioned at the Hôtel Drouot in Paris. The auction catalogue provided an overview of the treasures Thoré-Bürger had collected during his lifetime. The collection consisted of 59 paintings, including masterpieces by his beloved 17th-century Dutch masters. However, the most striking part of the auction was the presence of several works by Johannes Vermeer, the artist whom Thoré-Bürger had single-handedly rescued from obscurity.”

Could it be that one of the two Guitar Player paintings is the work of either Charles F. Ulrich or Robert Frederick Blum? Is it conceivable that the true painting of Guitar Player by Vermeer was utilized as a target for Ulrich and/or Blum to develop “a fastidious method of painting that reflected” the style and content of Jan Vermeer?

Some art historians have suggested that Jan Vermeer used camera obscura, (e.g., https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/vermeer_camera_01.shtml

“Vermeer and the Camera Obscura, By Philip Steadman, Last updated 2011-02-17

For more than a hundred years, it has been suggested that the great 17th-century Dutch master Johannes Vermeer made use of the camera obscura as an aid to painting. The camera obscura was the predecessor of the photographic camera, but without the light-sensitive film or plate. [..]

Most of the literature of the camera obscura available when Vermeer was working, in the third quarter of the 17th century, describes instruments that took the form of closed rooms, tents or cubicles (like Kircher’s design), which the user worked inside. It has sometimes been suggested that Vermeer might have used a camera of a rather different kind, which certainly existed in his time, but which was only manufactured in large numbers in the 18th and 19th centuries. [..]

Why have people imagined that Vermeer might have been a camera user? There is absolutely no documentary evidence to support this idea. The only source of information is the paintings themselves. The first person to make the suggestion, as long ago as 1891, was the American graphic artist Joseph Pennell, who pointed to what he called the ‘photographic perspective’ of Vermeer’s Officer and Laughing Girl. The two figures sit very close across the corner of the table. But the image of the officer’s head is about twice as wide as that of the smiling girl. The perspective is perfectly correct in a geometrical sense: the discrepancy arises because the viewpoint of the picture is close to the soldier. We are quite familiar today with foreground objects appearing very large in snapshots. But in 17th-century painting this is rather unusual, and Vermeer’s contemporaries would have made human figures in a composition of this kind much more nearly equal in size.”

The BBC article by Philip Steadman includes several additional forms of evidence which suggest that Jan Vermeer used camera obscura as a technique in his paintings. The primary relevance at present is that the same technique could be used to replicate paintings which very closely resemble the work which Vermeer authentically produced. Or the technique could be used to produce new paintings which appear to be the work of Vermeer.

May I raise the possibility that several other paintings attributed to Jan Vermeer were actually counterfeit paintings produced by Charles F. Ulrich, the painter, and perhaps Frederick Blum as well?

Dare I suggest that the majority of the paintings attributed to Jan Vermeer- and presumed to be 17^th century masterpieces- were actually executed by Ulrich and Blum in the 1880’s?

Could it be that Charles F. Ulrich and Robert Frederick Blum did not “die of pneumonia” in the forties but rather were murdered because they knew too much about their role in producing paintings falsely attributed to Vermeer?

May I raise the possibility that the story told by William J. Burns to McClure’s Magazine (reported by Dana Gatlin) was an outright fabrication and that the name “Charles F. Ulrich” attributed to a counterfeiter was a thinly-veiled allusion to the painter of the same name?

The scarcity of paintings attributed to Vermeer leads to them being sold very rarely. The website https://cypaint.com/article/when-wass-last-sale-of-a-vermeer-painting reports that in November 2023, Sotheby’s New York sold Vermeer’s ‘The Last Sitting’ for 40.8 million US dollars.

***

Chapter 4: Elementary Connection of Burns and Doyle: the Clue of the Mandatory Vaccination

On several occasions, including twice in the above passages, the book Incredible Detective compares William J. Burns to the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes from the series of books authored by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. As a matter of fact, Burns and Doyle met on at least three occasions.

https://www.arthur-conan-doyle.com/wiki/William_J._Burns

“In April 1913, William J. Burns visited Arthur Conan Doyle at his home of Windlesham, Crowborough, Sussex. In May 1914, Arthur Conan Doyle was a guest of William J. Burns to visit Coney Island (New York). In April 1922, William J. Burns greeted Arthur Conan Doyle and his family when he arrived in America from England to deliver a series of lectures on spiritualism.

“William J. Burns starred in the movie The $5,000,000 Counterfeiting Plot where Arthur Conan Doyle appeared in the final scene in some posed pictures (photos) with Burns.”

And citing The Berkshire Evening Eagle (17 may 1913, p. 12) “American Detective Meets the Creator of Sherlock Holmes. Finds Him a Cultured Gentleman Who Asks Many Questions.”:

“I often have been asked,” Burns went on, “if the principles outlined by Conan Doyle in the Sherlock Holmes stories could be applied is real detective work, and my reply to this question is, decidedly ‘yes.’ The two great qualities necessary in successful sleuthing are imagination and resourcefulness, added to an expert knowledge of human nature, and exactly those three qualities characterize Sir Arthur.

“We talked quite a lot about ‘Sherlock Holmes’ — as a matter of fact I did most of the talking and I was surprised to discover that the person who apparently is least impressed with those wonderful stories is the man who wrote them.”

It is a little-known fact that Arthur Conan Doyle, himself a medical doctor, was an outspoken advocate of vaccination, decrying the work of Anti-Vaccination Society, and is credited with two letters to the editors of two widely-read newspapers in July 1887 -a time when the issue of mandatory vaccination for smallpox and other diseases was under debate in England.

Both are given here in their entirety (per https://web.archive.org/web/2016005131009/https://www.arthur-conan-doyle.com/index.php?title=Compulsory_Vaccination_-_The_Evening_Mail ):

“Compulsory Vaccination is a letter written by Arthur Conan Doyle first published in The Evening Mail (Portsmouth) on 15 July 1887.

Sir, — From time to time some champion of the party which is opposed to vaccination comes forward to air his views in the public Press, but these periodical sallies seldom lead to any discussion, as the inherent weakness of their position renders a reply superfluous. When, however, a gentleman of Colonel Wintle’s position makes an attack upon what is commonly considered by those most competent to judge to be one of the greatest victories ever won by science over disease, it is high time that some voice should be raised upon the other side. Hobbies and fads are harmless things as a rule, but when a hobby takes the form of encouraging ignorant people to neglect sanitary precautions and to live in a fool’s paradise until bitter experience teaches them their mistake, it becomes a positive danger to the community at large. The interests at stake are so vital that an enormous responsibility rests with the men whose notion of progress is to revert to the condition of things which existed in the dark ages before the dawn of medical science.

Colonel Wintle bases his objection to vaccination upon two points: its immorality and its inefficiency or positive harmfulness. Let us consider it under each of these heads, giving the moral question the precedence which is its due. Is it immoral for a Government to adopt a method of procedure which experience has proved and science has testified to conduce to the health and increased longevity of the population? Is it immoral to inflict a Passing inconvenience upon a child in order to preserve it from a deadly disease? Does the end never justify the means? Would it be immoral to give Colonel Wintle a push in order to save him from being run over by a locomotive? If all these are really immoral, I trust and pray that we may never attain morality. The colonel’s reasoning reminds me of nothing so much as that adduced by some divines of the Scottish Church, who protested against the induction of chloroform. “Pain was sent us by Providence,” said the worthy ministers, “and it is therefore sinful to abolish it.” Colonel Wintle’s line of argument is that smallpox has been also sent by Providence and that it becomes immoral to take any steps to neutralise its mischief. When once it has been concisely stated, it needs no further agitation.

In the second place is the mode of treatment a success? It has been before the public for nearly a hundred years, during which time it has been thrashed out periodically in learned societies, argued over in medical journals, examined by statisticians, sifted and tested in every conceivable method, and the result of it all is that among those who are brought in practical contact with disease, there is a unanimity upon the point which is more complete than upon any other medical subject. Homoeopath and allopath, foreigner and Englishman, find here a common ground for agreement. I fear that the testimony of the Southsea ladies which Col. Wintle quotes, or that of the district visitors which he invokes, will hardly counter-balance this consensus of scientific opinion.

The ravages made by smallpox in the days of our ancestors can hardly be realised by the present sanitary and well-vaccinated generation. Macaulay remarks that in the advertisements of the early Georgian era there is hardly ever a missing relative who is not described as “having pock marks upon his face.” It was universal, in town and in country, in the cottage and in the palace. Mary, the wife of William the Third, sickened and died of it. Whole tracts of country were decimated. Now-a-days there is many a general practitioner who lives and dies without having ever seen a case. What is the cause of this amazing difference? There is no doubt what the cause appeared to be in the eyes of the men who having had experience of the old system saw the Jennerian practice of inoculation come into vogue. When in 1802 Jenner was awarded £30,000 by a grateful country the gift came from men who could see by force of contrast the value of his discovery.

I am aware that Anti-Vaccinationists endeavour to account for the wonderful decrease of smallpox by supposing that there has been some change in the type of the disease. This is pure assumption, and the facts seem to point in the other direction. Other zymotic diseases have not, as far as we know, modified their characteristics, and smallpox still asserts itself with its ancient virulence whenever sanitary defects, or the prevalence of thinkers of the Colonel Wintle type, favour its development. I have no doubt that our recent small outbreak in Portsmouth would have assumed formidable proportions had it found a congenial uninoculated population upon which to fasten. In the London smallpox hospital nurses, doctors and dressers have been in contact with the sick for more than fifty years, and during that time there is no case on record of nurse, doctor, or dresser catching the disease. They are, of course, periodically vaccinated. How long, I wonder, would the committee of the Anti-Vaccination Society remain in the wards before a case broke out among them?

As to the serious results of vaccination, which Colonel Wintle describes as indescribable, they are to a very large extent imaginary. Of course there are some unhealthy children, the offspring of unhealthy parents, who will fester and go wrong if they are pricked with a pin. It is possible that the district visitors appealed to may find out some such case. They are certainly rare, for in a tolerably large experience (five years in a large hospital, three in a busy practice in Birmingham, and nearly six down here) I have only seen one case, and it soon got well. Some parents have an amusing habit of ascribing anything which happens to their children, from the whooping-cough to a broken leg, to the effects of their vaccination. It is from this class that the anti-vaccinationist party is largely recruited.

In conclusion I would say that the subject is of such importance, ancestors call and our present immunity from small pox so striking, that it would take a very strong case to justify a change. As long as that case is so weak as to need the argument of morality to enforce it I think that the Vaccination Acts are in no great danger of being repealed.

It was Yours faithfully,

A. CONAN DOYLE,

M.D., C.M.

Doyle’s second letter was published only two weeks later:

https://web.archive.org/web/20161005130216/https://www.arthur-conan-doyle.com/index.php?title=Compulsory_Vaccination_-_The_Hampshire_County_Times

Compulsory Vaccination is a letter written by Arthur Conan Doyle first published in The Hampshire County Times (Portsmouth) on 27 July 1887.

Sir, — Colonel Wintle’s second letter appears to me to contain a Jumble of statistics and quotations, some of which do not affect the question at all, while others tell dead against the cause which he is championing. If there is such a consensus of testimony that there was a marked diminution of pock-marked faces between the years 1815 and 1835, is it not a fact that these are the very years when the fruits of Jenner’s discovery might be expected to show itself upon the rising generation? Colonel Wintle’s argument appears to be that it was a mere coincidence that the disease should begin to diminish it at the very time when the new treatment was adopted by a considerable section of the public. The medical profession holds that it was cause and effect — an explanation which has been amply borne out by subsequent experience.

The Colonel seems to think that because we still suffer from occasional epidemics of smallpox that proves the system of vaccination to be a failure. On the contrary, the most clinching argument in its favour is furnished by these very epidemics, for when their results come to be tabulated they show with startling clearness the difference in the mortality between those who have and have not been vaccinated. The unvaccinated not only contract the disease more readily, but it attacks them in a far more virulent form. The Sheffield case recorded by “Common Sense” is a remarkable and recent example of this well-known fact. The protection afforded by vaccination is in exact proportion to the thoroughness of the original inoculation. I suppose the most determined anti-vaccinationist would hardly venture to suggest that the statistics of hospitals are cooked in order to annihilate their particular fad. Here are Marson’s tabulated results of the cases treated at the Smallpox Hospital during twenty years, and if Colonel Wintle can ignore them, I am puzzled to know what evidence would be accepted by him as conclusive. A glance at the subjoined table will show that there is a most exact correspondence between the degree of vaccination and the degree of mortality:—

of those with 4 vaccine marks ......... 5 per cent died
of those with 3 vaccine marks ......... 1.9
of those with 2 vaccine marks ......... 4. 7
of those with 1 vaccine marks ......... 7.7
With none, but professing to have been vaccinated ......... 23.3
Non-vaccinated patients ......... 37

Here it will be seen that the death-rate varies from less than one in a hundred among the well-vaccinated to the enormous mortality of 37 per cent among Colonel Wintle’s followers. These figures, remember, are taken from no single outbreak, where phenomenal conditions might prevail, but they represent a steady average drawn from twenty years of London smallpox. I might quote other corroborative tables of statistics, but I feel that if the foregoing fails to convince no other evidence is likely to succeed. Colonel Wintle remarks that London and Liverpool are more afflicted by smallpox than any other towns and deduces from that an argument against vaccination. The reason for the prevalence of the disease is of course that they have a larger floating population than any other English city and that therefore it is more difficult to enforce the vaccination acts. With all the zeal in the world a public vaccinator cannot eliminate smallpox in a large port with a constant influx of foreigners and seamen.

Anti-vaccinationists harp upon vaccine being a poison. Of course it is a poison. So is opium, digitalis, and arsenic, though they are three of the most valuable drugs in the pharmacopaeia. The whole science of medicine is by the use of a mild poison to counteract a deadly one. The virus of rabies is a poison, but Pasteur has managed to turn it to account in the treatment of hydrophobia.

As to fatal cases following vaccination, medical men are keenly alive to the necessity of using the purest lymph, and no candid enquirer can deny that some deplorable cases have resulted in the past from the neglect of this point. Such incidents are as painful as they are rare. Every care is now used to exclude a possibility of a strumous or syphilitic taint being communicated, these being the only constitutional diseases which have been ever known to be conferred. As I said in my previous letter, there are some children who will fester and inflame if they are picked with a pin, and these occasionally have their hereditary weakness brought out by the vaccination. Such stray cases, however, even if we allowed Colonel Wintle’s extreme estimate of one a week, bear an infinitesimal proportion to the total amount of good done. At present if a child dies of any cause within a certain time of its vaccination the anti-vaccinators are ready to put it down as cause and effect. Convulsions, whether arising from worms, or teething, or brain irritation, are all ascribed to the pernicious effect of what the literature of the league terms “that filthy rite.”

In conclusion, there is no reason why Colonel Wintle should not hold his own private opinion upon the matter. But he undertakes a vast responsibility when, in the face of the overwhelming testimony of those who are brought most closely into contact with disease, he incites others, through the public press, to follow the same course and take their chance of infection in defiance of hospital statistics. Only the possession of an extremely strong case can justify a man in opposing medical men upon a medical point, and this is of all points the one which should be most cautiously approached, as the welfare of the whole community s at stake. Should I put forward some positive and dogmatic views upon the rifling of guns or the trajectory of a shell, Colonel Wintle, as an artillerist, would be justified in demanding that I should produce some good reasons for the faith which was in me. The tendency of the scientific world, if we may judge from the work not only of Pasteur and Koch, but also of Burdon-Sanderson, Toussaint, and others, lies more and more in the direction of preventive methods of inoculation to check zymotic disease. In opposing that tendency Colonel Wintle, however much he may persuade himself to the contrary, is really opposing progress and lending himself to the propagation of error.

To anyone who wishes to know exactly the evidence upon Which the practice of vaccination is based I should recommend “The Facts about Vaccination,” published by the National Health Society, 44, Berners-street, London.

A. CONAN DOYLE, M.D., Bush Villa, Southsea”

As it happens, the very first publication of Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes character occurred only four months after his two letters promoting compulsory vaccination were issued (per https://web.archive.org/web/20210125024658/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/7759600/Inscribed-copy-of-Sherlock-Holmes-debut-book-for-sale.html ):

“The copy of A Study In Scarlet, the debut novel by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, is one of only two inscribed examples known to exist.

Sotheby’s will auction the work, which it described as ‘’one of the rarest books of modern times’, in London this summer. The book was published in 1887 and took fewer than three weeks to write.

Describing its significance, Sotheby’s said: ‘Undoubtedly the most important book Conan Doyle ever wrote, A Study In Scarlet gave birth to Sherlock Holmes, explained how he and Dr Watson came to be together and set in motion one of the most highly successful characters - and indeed the first major serial character - in English literature, a forerunner of everyone from Hercule Poirot to James Bond.’

Despite being a hit on publication, the work was initially rejected by a succession of publishers. It finally made it into print in November 1887, in Beeton’s Christmas Annual.

The issue sold out in 14 days and was later republished, but Conan Doyle never received a penny more for the work, having given up all the rights to his publisher for the sum of £25. [..]

The author’s inscription reads: ‘This is the first independent book of mine which ever was published, Arthur Conan Doyle.’

Sixty Holmes tales appeared over 40 years after the publication of A Study In Scarlet, gripping readers around the world.”

Given the apparent deception involved in the William J. Burns stories published in McClure’s Magazine and the close association of Doyle and Burns, one might pose this question:

Is it possible that the two letters submitted by Arthur Conan Doyle which railed against “anti-vaccinationists” were associated with his remarkable success, very shortly thereafter, in publishing his Sherlock Holmes stories?

Pause to reflect upon the strong convictions of Edmund Burke who in Reflections on the Revolution in France published in 1792 (check year) wrote that (see also http://thewayout.substack.com/p/learn-to-decode-part-3-an-act-of ):

“Along with the monied interest, a new description of men had grown up with whom that interest soon formed a close and marked union- I mean the political men of letters. Men of letters, fond of distinguishing themselves, are rarely averse to innovation. [..] What they lost in the old court protection, they endeavored to make up by joining in a sort of incorporation of their own; to which the two academies of France, and afterwards the vast undertaking of the Encyclopedia, carried on by a society of these gentlemen did not a little contribute.

The literary cabal had some years ago formed something like a regular plan for the destruction of the Christian religion. This object they pursued with a degree of zeal which hitherto had been discovered only in the propagators of some system of piety. [..] They contrived to possess themselves, with great method and perseverance, of all the avenues of literary fame. [..] To this system of literary monopoly was joined an unremitting industry to blacken and discredit in every way, and by every means, all those who did not hold to their faction. To those who have observed the spirit of their conduct it has long been clear that nothing was wanted but the power of carrying the intolerance of the tongue and of the pen into a persecution which would strike at property, life, and liberty.” (pp. 97-98)

In addition to literature, the press was (and arguably is) subject to control by what Burke might describe as “the monied interest”. Quigley in his aforementioned text details the pervasive influence of the Rhodes Group on the London Times reporting in the lead up and aftermath of the Jameson Raid (of 1895) in the Boer War in South Africa (pp. 109-111). He then goes on to make the emphatic statement that:

“(T)he Milner Group controlled The Times, indirectly from 1912 if not earlier and directly from 1922. [..]

This influence was not exercised by acting directly on public opinion, since the Milner Group never intended to influence events by acting through any instruments of mass propaganda, but rather hoped to work on the opinions of the small group of ‘important people,’ who could in turn influence wider and wider circles of persons. This was the basis on which the Milner Group itself was constructed; it was the theory behind the Rhodes Scholarships; it was the theory behind the ‘The Round Table’ and the Royal Institute of International Affairs; it was the theory behind the efforts to control All Souls, New College, and Balliol and, through these three, to control Oxford University.” (p. 113)

The premise of mandatory vaccination is clearly an exceptional case, in that mass propaganda would be necessary to convince a population to accept the idea on a personal basis. Even if laws passed which require vaccines, in a country like England based on individual liberty, each individual makes a choice about whether to abide by the letter of the law or find a way around it. The latter might hold particular appeal given that even Doyle acknowledges “fatal cases following vaccination”, adding the dismissive phrase, “Such incidents are as painful as they are rare”.

Letters composed by a medical doctor like Arthur Conan Doyle with statistics and what appear to be sound and forceful arguments would be expected to influence the population to accept compulsory vaccination within their personal sphere. And this contention would be even more convincing if the doctor authored stories which only the best of logicians would be capable of crafting.

Is it conceivable that there was a quid pro quo, with Doyle signing the two letters in exchange for promised fame as an acclaimed author?

Let us take the inquiry one step farther.

Is it within the realm of possibility that Arthur Conan Doyle did not himself conceive of all of the Sherlock Holmes stories with which he is credited? In other words, is it possible that some (or all) of the detective stories were ghost-written and falsely attributed to Dr. Doyle in exchange for his acting as a highly visible and credible proponent of compulsory vaccination?

***

Chapter 5: The Mystery of the Death of Joseph Meister and Louis Pasteur’s Rabies Treatment

Let us explore one section of Doyle’s first letter further.

“Anti-vaccinationists harp upon vaccine being a poison. Of course it is a poison. So is opium, digitalis, and arsenic, though they are three of the most valuable drugs in the pharmacopaeia. The whole science of medicine is by the use of a mild poison to counteract a deadly one. The virus of rabies is a poison, but Pasteur has managed to turn it to account in the treatment of hydrophobia.”

Louis Pasteur gained fame through his development of several vaccines, including one for rabies. A brief commentary on Pasteur’s connection with Joseph Lister, founder of modern surgery, and a useful timeline is summarized at https://histmed.collegeofphysicians.org/louis-pasteur-joseph-lister-and-the-mystery-of-the-smudged-date/

“Louis Pasteur, Joseph Lister, and the Mystery of the Smudged Date”, 3 November 2015, by Karie Youngdahl, Project Director, History of Vaccines

Herein, a letter written to Pasteur’s protege and colleague, Emile Roux reveals “the important connection between Pasteur and Joseph Lister, who is known as the founder of modern surgery. In the 1860s, Lister built on Pasteur’s findings that germs contributed to fermentation and putrefaction: he demonstrated that use of an antiseptic helped prevent wounds from becoming infected. The two struck up a friendly correspondence and met in England when Pasteur addressed the International Medical Congress in 1881 on vaccination for anthrax and chicken cholera. [..]

Pasteur addressed the letter to his protégé and collaborator Emile Roux.

“(Medical historian Robert Abbe, 1851-1928) included the following translation:

‘August 8, 1883

My Dear Roux,

Do not bother about that affair of Sarda. I have sent the box for which he asked from Carcassonne. I have just written to Lister and had the idea of promising him two vaccinations of the maximum strength yet made for his use in surgery. Can you send him this—you ought to have something at hand of that strength.

Best wishes, L. Pasteur’

To which vaccine was Pasteur referring in the letter, and why would Lister the surgeon be interested? In 1883, Pasteur had already had successes with veterinary vaccines for anthrax and chicken cholera. It’s conceivable that he might have been referring to one of those preparations, though one wonders what use Lister would have had with animal vaccines. Pasteur’s first vaccine for use in humans, the rabies vaccine, was still two years away. In the summer of 1883 Pasteur had not yet begun to systematically attenuate the rabies virus, and he would not treat a human with rabies vaccine until 1885. [..]

But what if we take a closer look at the date on the letter and investigate what was happening around the time? The date itself is difficult to read and partially obscured by a smudge. The year could just as easily be 1883, 1885, or 1886. [..]

If the date on the letter was actually August 8, 1885, Pasteur would have already successfully used his rabies vaccine on Joseph Meister, whom he first treated on July 6, 1885. Alternatively, an 1886 date would be contemporary with Lister’s appointment to an English commission charged with investigating Pasteur’s rabies treatment. (In fact, out of Lister’s commission would arise the Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine, for rabies treatment and study of other infectious disease.)

It is instances like this where a small smudge of a date on a letter might make a world of difference in interpreting the sequence of historical events…”

While there may be some debate over the date, it should be emphasized that the historian most closely connected to the letter placed the date as 1883. Given the context of the letter, it suggests that Pasteur may have experimented with vaccinating humans (whether for rabies, cholera, or anthrax) prior to the accepted date of 6 July 1885.

An interesting part of the story of the first patient vaccinated by Pasteur concerns the cirmcumstances of his death (per https://www.academia.edu/89936467/History_Great_myths_die_hard with several secondary references in linked article):

“History: Great myths die hard by Heloise Dufour, NATURE | VOL 502 | 3 OCTOBER 2013

HOW MEISTER DIED

In July 1885, a 9-year-old French boy named Joseph Meister was badly bitten by a rabid dog, and faced near-certain death. Instead, young Meister entered medical history: he was Louis Pasteur’s first human patient to be treated and saved by a rabies vaccine. For more than half a century, accounts of the story in both English and French have been given a dramatic ending. In 1940, 55 years after his life was saved, Meister was serving as a gatekeeper at the Pasteur Institute in Paris. The story goes that when German forces invaded Paris in June that year, soldiers arrived at the institute demanding access to Pasteur’s tomb and, rather than surrender his saviour’s resting place to the Nazis, the 64-year-old Meister killed himself. Two years ago, while researching life in occupied Paris for a book on biologist Jacques Monod, we came across a contemporaneous diary by Eugene Wollman in the archives of the Pasteur Institute. Wollman was head of the institute’s bacteriophage lab and resident on site, and his entries directly contradict the popularized accounts of Meister’s suicide. The diary reveals that the date, means and motive have each been altered in the making of a myth. In the widely repeated narrative, Meister killed himself on 14 June or 16 June, just after the German invasion of France. But on 24 June, ten days after the Germans entered Paris, Wollman wrote: “This morning, Meister was found dead.” It is often reported that Meister shot himself, but Wollman stated: “He committed suicide with gas.” Some sources note that Meister committed suicide because he could not bear the idea of the Nazis profaning Pasteur’s tomb. Wollman makes no mention of any such incident. Instead, he indicates that Meister was “very depressed” and that “his wife and children had left”. Like millions of others, they had fled Paris ahead of the onrushing German army. Our interest piqued, we scoured published accounts of Meister’s death, as well as several written sources in the Pasteur Institute’s archives and museum. Moreover, Marie-José Demouron, Meister’s granddaughter, kindly granted us an interview. Together, these sources confirm Wollman’s version and shed further light on the motive for Meister’s suicide. Meister apparently believed that his family had perished in enemy bombing, and was overwhelmed with guilt for having sent them away (ref. 11, and M.-J. Demouron, personal communication).”

Why might Joseph Meister’s death- an alleged suicide in both accounts- be sensationalized in the press? To understand the context of Pasteur’s work and Meister’s association, it is helpful to consider some excerpts from “Louis Pasteur, the Father of Immunology?” by Kendall Smith, published in the journal Frontiers of Immunology in April 2012. ( https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3342039/ )

“As a student of immunology, I learned that Louis Pasteur was really the father of immunology, despite Edward Jenner’s pioneering introduction of vaccination to prevent smallpox in 1798 (Smith, 2011). Although successful, Jenner’s experiments led to no understanding as to how immunity develops. By comparison, in addition to his many contributions to microbiology, Pasteur introduced the concept that vaccination could be applied to any microbial disease, and he reported methods as to how the virulence of microbes could attenuated so that live microbes could be used to make prophylactic vaccines that could be made in the laboratory and manufactured in unlimited quantities for use worldwide. As if that were not enough, Pasteur also introduced the concept of therapeutic vaccines with his studies of rabies. Thus, he showed that what we now call post-infection prophylaxis could be used to treat individuals who were exposed to a virulent organism, and if applied soon enough after infection, clinical disease and death could be averted. [..]

As I too became interested in vaccines later in my career, I began to wonder about Pasteur’s pioneering vaccine work, especially the idea that it was important to use live attenuated microbes to generate immunity. Between the 1880s and the mid twentieth century, no one had reproduced Pasteur’s work, attenuating bacteria to make vaccines. [..]”

Kendall Smith then provides an interesting detailed account of Pasteur’s work to disprove “spontaneous generation” though his famous experiment in 1862 and progresses to his work in the late 1870’s. In the next excerpt, which is rather long, I would ask the reader to pay especially close attention to the mindset of Louis Pasteur was at the timeframe after his scientific findings were challenged, starting in summer of 1880, and his documented actions shortly thereafter.

“Throughout medieval times, anthrax was a disease primarily of livestock, and it still is considered so. In humans, the most common affliction is a skin inflammation, and in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, cutaneous anthrax was known as wool sorter’s disease, because farmers and mill workers would contract it from handling animals and wool that were contaminated by anthrax spores. However, for the livestock industry, anthrax was a serious problem, in that many animals could succumb to a more serious disease manifested by both gastrointestinal and pulmonary symptoms, followed by shock and death. Once animals died and their corpses were allowed to disintegrate in a pasture, it was well known that if a particular pasture was suspect, the reintroduction of fresh animals in the spring often resulted in a reappearance of the disease. Of course, as a result of Koch’s experiments, now we know that the ability of the microbe to sporulate enables it to withstand harsh temperatures and conditions that occur during the winter months.

Two years after Koch’s publication proving the microbial nature of anthrax, Pasteur presented a Summary to the Sessions of the Academy of Sciences (Pasteur et al., 1878). According to Pasteur:

The only way currently available to science to experimentally prove that a microscopic organism is the cause of both the illness itself and its transmission, is to subject the microbe to serial cultures.

Pasteur goes on to describe his experiments with the anthrax bacillus, never mentioning that Koch had already demonstrated the culture of the anthrax microbe 2 years earlier. In concluding, he states that:

I ask the Academy not to dismiss these curious results before I demonstrate one important theoretical conclusion. We insist on demonstrating at the start of these studies (that are opening a whole new world of knowledge) a proof that the cause of transmissible, contagious and infectious diseases resides essentially and uniquely in the presence of microorganisms.

Only 2 years later, Pasteur again presented to the members of the Academy a treatise entitled “Of Infectious Diseases, Especially the Disease of Chicken Cholera” (Pasteur, 1880).

In this presentation, Pasteur first reminded the members that the theory of spontaneous generation was false, as demonstrated by his experiments performed more than 20 years previously. He then set the stage by stating,

Infectious diseases consist of most of the major disasters, such as small pox, scarlet fever, rubella, syphilis, glanders, anthrax, yellow fever, typhus, and bovine plague.

Pasteur then discussed the phenomenon of vaccination as introduced by Edward Jenner almost 100 years before.

The practices of vaccination and variolization have been known in India for the longest time. Even before Jenner demonstrated the efficacy of vaccinia, people of the countryside where he practiced already knew that cowpox protected against small pox. The facts about vaccinia are unique, but the facts about non-recurrence of virulent diseases are more general. The organism never expresses twice the effect of chicken pox, scarlet fever, typhus, plague, small pox, syphilis, and others, as the immunity persists for a long time at least.

Pasteur then introduced the problem of chicken cholera and mentioned that M. Toussaint, a professor at the veterinary school of Toulouse, had been first to culture and isolate the microbe that he thought to be responsible for the cause of the disease in chickens. Pasteur went on to say that he had discovered an improved culture medium for the microbe, and…

We can diminish the microbe’s virulence by changing the mode of culturing. This is the crucial point of my subject. I ask the Academy not to criticize, for the time being, the confidence of my proceedings that permit me to determine the microbe’s attenuation, in order to save the independence of my studies and to better assure their progress.

This is a crucial aspect of Pasteur’s experiments and of his presentations to the public. In France it was common practice to submit a sealed note (called a pli cachete) on an important scientific discovery to the Academy of Sciences to secure or protect one’s priority. In contrast, an official patent (brevet d’invention) was necessary to establish one’s right to the commercial exploitation of that discovery. Pasteur thus kept it a secret as to exactly how he had attenuated the virulence of the chicken cholera microbe for more than 9 months, until October of 1880.

Eventually Pasteur disclosed that his methods simply involved culturing the microbe exposed to atmospheric oxygen for prolonged culture intervals, i.e., longer than 2–3 months. However, he never explained why oxygen should weaken microbes, especially the aerobic microbes, of which the chicken cholera was one, and anthrax is another. It is likely that he did not want to risk others trying to repeat his methods, both from the standpoint of the fear of their success, as well as their failure.

Pasteur then described using the “live atmosphere-attenuated” cholera vaccine to immunize animals against lethal challenges of the microbe, and stated that

It seems as if the initial microbe inoculations (of the live attenuated vaccine) have depleted a certain element that healing does not reconstitute and that the absence of which hinders the development of this small organism (when re-inoculated a second, third, and fourth time). This explanation will without doubt, become general and applied to all infectious diseases.

I would like to point out to the Academy two main consequences to the facts presented: the hope to culture all microbes and to find a vaccine for all infectious diseases that have repeatedly afflicted humanity, and are a major burden on agriculture and breeding of domestic animals.

The importance of Pasteur’s theory, i.e., that it was possible to attenuate the virulence of all microbes, simply by passing them in special culture conditions, can only be appreciated by understanding the competition that developed between Pasteur and Toussaint in the summer of 1880 involving different approaches to the creation of a vaccine for anthrax. The story is detailed in a book entitled “The Private Science of Louis Pasteur” by Gerald Geison, who was Professor of History at Princeton University (Geison, 1995).

Pasteur had begun working on a vaccine for anthrax 3 years previously in 1877, soon after Koch’s announcement on the isolation of the causative anthrax bacillus. On July 12, 1880, Henri Bouley (a fellow veterinarian and friend of Toussaint) read before the Academy of Sciences a report from Toussaint (who was not a member of the Academy), which described the initial results of his experimental vaccine trials. In contrast to Pasteur’s “live atmosphere-attenuated” vaccine, Toussaint generated his vaccine simply by killing the bacilli by heating for 10 min at 55°C. Using this vaccine, Toussaint had conducted trials on 8 dogs and 11 sheep. Of the eight dogs, four had been injected with the vaccine and had survived a series of four successive injections of virulent live anthrax. By comparison, all four unvaccinated dogs succumbed to the first injection. A similar result was obtained with the sheep.

In August while vacationing, Pasteur heard the news of Toussaint’s vaccine experiments from Bouley. He responded as follows:

My very good colleague,

Since yesterday morning, when I received your letter, the extracts of the journals, and the Summary of the Academy of Sciences-all at the same time –I have been in astonishment and admiration over the discovery of M. Toussaint-in admiration that it exists, in astonishment that it can be. It overturns all the ideas I had on viruses, vaccines, etc. I no longer understand anything. Ten times yesterday, I had the idea of taking the train to Paris. I really cannot believe this surprising fact until I’ve seen it, seen it with my own eyes, though the observation that establishes the fact makes me want to confirm it to my own satisfaction.

The Academy of medicine has thus received a severe lesson. It will surely have grasped that one does not deal lightly with facts of this order in public, that contemplation is appropriate in the face of such solutions to such problems.

I am too moved to write more fully. I have dreamed about it, both asleep and awake, all through the night.

Best to you and thanks.

L. Pasteur

As Geison (1995) pointed out, Pasteur’s expression of surprise and agitation makes sense only in the context of his general theoretical views on infectious diseases and immunity. Because of his successes in his studies of the metabolism of living microbes, Pasteur naturally extended his microbiological concepts to immunity. Linking immunity with the biology of microbes, especially the nutritional requirements of different microbes, he suggested that the tissues of the invaded host might contain only trace amounts of substances required for the growth and survival of the microbe, just as some culture media contained only trace amounts of vital nutrients. If so, the invading microbe might soon exhaust the supply of these trace substances, rendering the host an unsuitable medium for the microbe’s subsequent cultivation. Thus, the host would not support the growth of a subsequent infection by the microbe, and would be “immune.” Also, an attenuated microbe would be one that had been stressed by cultivation, either in vitro or in vivo, in an environment that was limiting in essential nutrients, thereby causing it to lose its virulence.

Thus, central to Pasteur’s conception of immunity, was the biological activity of a living, if attenuated, microbe that depleted the host of essential nutrients. It was Toussaint’s claim that he had in fact produced a “dead” vaccine against anthrax that moved Pasteur to state that “it overturns all the ideas I had on viruses, vaccines, etc.”

As one might imagine, given Pasteur’s theory, and his statements already made to the Academy, his lance had been planted. He could not, and would not, graciously admit that he was wrong. The story only goes downhill from this point. In the public critique that Pasteur was soon to issue against Toussaint’s work, his central theoretical concern was precisely the question of “live vs. dead” vaccines.

In August, 1880, soon after announcing his heat killing method of vaccine production, Toussaint switched his procedures and had begun to subject the bacilli to the action of carbolic acid, which Joseph Lister used as an antiseptic for the treatment of surgical wounds.

Pasteur did not announce the discovery of his own “live attenuated” anthrax vaccine until February 28, 1881 (Pasteur et al., 1881b). Of significance, Pasteur linked his new vaccine with his earlier chicken cholera vaccine by ascribing attenuation in both cases to the action of atmospheric oxygen, “atmospheric attenuation.” However, there was an important difference between the production methods of the two vaccines. Unlike the chicken cholera microbe, the anthrax bacillus formed spores that “resisted the attenuating effects of atmospheric oxygen.” It had taken much time and empirical effort to ascertain that a spore-free culture of anthrax could be produced at a temperature of 42–43°C.

Subsequently, on March 21st, Pasteur reported further successful results testing his vaccine in sheep, which stimulated a challenge by the Agricultural Society of Melun, at Pouilly-le-Fort, which is 40 km from Paris. Examination of Pasteur’s lab notebooks (Geison, 1995) revealed that he had been conducting small trials, testing his vaccines in animals during this time, with less than conclusive results as to the protective efficacy of the live atmospheric attenuated vaccine. However, at the same time Pasteur’s lab was testing a vaccine prepared by M. Chamberland who was experimenting with a vaccine prepared by chemical treatment with potassium-bichromate, which is an oxidant commonly used in chemistry labs to clean glassware. In small-scale tests this vaccine was working.

If Pasteur had failed to accept the challenge from the veterinarians, he would certainly have damaged his reputation in his competition with Toussaint. Moreover, there were already rumors that Pasteur was really seeking to profit financially from his “secret remedies” against livestock diseases. Therefore, Pasteur “impulsively” accepted the challenge and on April 28, 1881, he signed a detailed and demanding protocol, which was performed in May.

Of 50 sheep in the trial, half were vaccinated on May 5th and May 17th, while the other half served as unvaccinated controls. All of the sheep were then challenged with a virulent culture of anthrax bacilli on May 31st. On June 2, 1881, there were more than 200 observers, including government officials, local politicians, veterinarians, farmers, agriculturists, cavalry officers, and newspaper reporters present to view the results of the experiment. All of the vaccinated sheep were alive, while most of the unvaccinated sheep were already dead, with the remaining obviously very ill.”

At this point, Kendall Smith provides an outline of Pasteur’s experience with tests of his experimental vaccine against anthrax in sheep in spring of 1881, adding that, “Only Pasteur and his collaborators knew of the real nature of the vaccine used for this famous trial.” Smith analyzes notes in lab notebooks, but the details of the vaccine preparation and the vaccine experimental trial (in sheep) are both obscured from view. Today, we might surmise that Louis Pasteur benefitted from a “good press”.

“The up-shot of this public triumph of Pasteur’s vaccine was that he received credit for developing the first successful vaccine against anthrax. Toussaint subsequently published only 2 more scientific papers before he died in 1890 at the age of 43, after suffering a mental breakdown. It was not until 1998, that the French government officially recognized Toussaint’s vaccine as the first effective vaccine against anthrax. In this regard, it is noteworthy that Robert Koch, who became one of Pasteur’s chief competitors, always hailed Toussaint as the worthy inventor of vaccination against anthrax, and persistently denigrated Pasteur’s contributions to microbiology (Geison, 1995).

With the success of the anthrax vaccine, Pasteur was intent on using his vaccine efforts on a disease important for humans. Just 9 days after his Academie des Sciences address, on June 22, 1881, he spoke at The International Congress of Directors of Agronomic Stations in Versailles. In speaking about the promise of his atmospheric attenuation method, he said that he had extended the method to a previously unknown “microbe of saliva” that he had detected in a child who had died of rabies.

Early on in Pasteur’s foray into vaccines, he wanted to find an animal disease that also affected man. Rabies provided that opportunity. Later, after he had “successfully” created a rabies vaccine, he insisted in private correspondence that he had undertaken the study of rabies “only with the thought of forcing the attention of physicians on these new doctrines”-that is to say, the still controversial germ theory of disease, and the technique of vaccination through atmosphere-attenuated cultures (Geison, 1995). He also was quite cognizant of the ethical problems associated with using experimental approaches on humans. Rabies provided the perfect disease, in that it was not an endemic or epidemic disease, like smallpox for example (Smith, 2011). In fact, it was relatively rare, at least in humans. Therefore, a prophylactic trial as in the anthrax experiment with 50 sheep was unapproachable, both for practical as well as ethical reasons. However, rabies was quite serious, in that after a bite from a rabid animal, the disease was usually lethal, and the illness and death quite horrible. This kind of situation, as well as the long incubation interval between the initial bites and the onset of symptoms, which could be several months, lent itself perfectly to a therapeutic intervention, rather than preventative.”

The author, Kendall Smith, then provides some useful background on attempts to understand rabies disease transmission along with Pasteur’s efforts to comprehend it. Skipping that part and moving ahead from 1881 to 1884 in the story, Smith reports the following:

“Subsequently, over the next few years, Pasteur experimented with methods of serial passage of the rabies virus through different species to ascertain whether he could attenuate its virulence. He then reported in May, 1884 that the serial passage of the virus from dogs through monkeys would attenuate it when re-inoculated back into dogs. Subsequently, in the year between this report and July of 1885, when he began treating the boy Joseph Meister who had been badly bitten by a supposedly rabid dog, Pasteur performed many different kinds of experiments on dogs as well as rabbits. Together with Roux a new method evolved in the lab to try to attenuate the rabies virus. Spinal cords taken from rabbits newly dead of rabies were suspended in flasks open to the air that contained potassium hydroxide as a desiccant, which Pasteur introduced to prevent the cords from putrifying. It appeared to Pasteur that each day of desiccation gradually led to an attenuation of virulence, such that after 14 days, if a portion of the dried cord was emulsified and injected into either rabbits or dogs, it had lost its virulence.

In the course of these experiments, Pasteur’s concept of the mechanism of immunity underwent another paradigm shift. According to his notebooks, he began to doubt the validity of his biological “exhaustion” theory, at first in the case of rabies, and then more generally (Geison, 1995). According to an unusually explicit theoretical entry into his notebook on the January 29, 1885, he was growing increasingly confident that he had made an “immense discovery” of potentially “great generality”-namely that the living rabies virus produced an inanimate, soluble, chemical “vaccinal substance” which was detrimental to the continued replication of the virus. This is the mechanism that now Pasteur began to believe was responsible for rendering immunity. It is this thought pattern that led him to experiments using serial inoculations going from fresh spinal cords (virulent) to successively dried (attenuated) spinal cords, instead of the other way around to try to generate immunity.

Despite these new theories, Pasteur related to the Academies des Sciences on October 26, 1885 an almost unbelievable story of his successful “therapeutic vaccination” of a young boy who had been bitten multiple times by a rabid dog (Pasteur, 1885).

He began his presentation by explaining how he had started experiments in 1882 with the inoculation of rabies virus from the spinal cord of a rabid dog into rabbits by trepanation, placing it under the dura matter covering the brain. After prolonged passage, >100×, the incubation interval was reduced from >15 to <7 days, thereby indicating increased virulence to Pasteur.

He went on to state,

The spinal cords of these rabbits are rabid throughout their length with a constancy in their virulence. If taking the greatest care possible to maintain purity one removes from these cords sections a few centimeters in length, and then suspends them in dry air, virulence slowly disappears until it finally disappears.

Here, Pasteur assumed that the virus in the desiccated jars remained alive but had lost its virulence, and thus was attenuated. However, obviously Pasteur had no way to identify the rabies organisms, or to tell whether they were alive or dead.

Having established these facts, here is the method to render a dog refractory (immune) to rabies in a relatively short time. In a series of flasks in which air is maintained in a dry state…each day one suspends a thickness of fresh rabbit spinal tissue taken from a rabbit dead of rabies. Each day as well, one inoculates under the skin of a dog 1 mL of sterilized bouillion, in which has dispersed a small fragment of one of these desiccated spinal pieces, beginning with a piece most distant in time from when it was worked upon, in order to be sure that it is not at all virulent. On the following days, one performed the same procedure with less old spinal tissue, separated by an interval of two days, until one reaches the last most virulent spinal tissue, that was placed only for a day or two in the flask. In this manner is the dog rendered immune to rabies. One can inject it with rabid virus under the skin or similarly on the brain surface by trepanation without rabies appearing.

By the application of this method, I had made fifty dogs of all ages refractory to rabies without a single failure, when unexpectedly on the 6th of July last, three persons from Alsace presented themselves to my laboratory. Joseph Meister, 9 years old…had suffered not less than 14 wounds from a rabid dog two days previously.

As the death of this child appeared inevitable, I decided, not without deep and severe unease, as one can well imagine, to try on Joseph Meister the procedure which had consistently worked in dogs.

Pasteur then describes 13 inoculations given over 10 days to the boy, beginning with spinal cords that had been desiccated for 14 days and progressing to fresh spinal cord material. As of the time of the Academie meeting, Joseph Meister had remained healthy for 3 months and 3 weeks.

Pasteur then went on to speculate as to why his vaccination had worked.

“What interpretation should we give to this new procedure that I have made known to prevent rabies after a bite”…Many microbes appear to give rise in their cultures to material that have the property to impede their own development…Could it be that the rabies virus is comprised of two distinct substances, side by side, one which is living and capable of multiplying rapidly in the nervous system, and another, not alive, having the faculty, when in a suitable amount to inhibit the development of the first?

After this presentation, Pasteur gradually withdrew from active experimentation, until his death in 1895 at age 73.”

Kendall Smith then concludes with:

“…The nature of the anthrax vaccine that Pasteur’s laboratory supplied to the many people who requested doses for their animals remains obscure, but was probably the potassium-bichromate-treated vaccine. Parenthetically, it is noteworthy that the vaccine was manufactured commercially by Pasteur’s team, in a lab around the corner, yielding a substantial income for the new Pasteur Institute, which was initiated in 1885. Therefore, this is one of the first, if not the first, example of a biotech company, and one that was used to support continued academic research. [..]

As for rabies, after Pasteur’s initial report in 1885, donations poured in from all over the world, which went toward the construction of the first building of l’Institut Pasteur, which opened in 1888. Pasteur had an apartment in the building, where he spent much of his time until his death.”

And finally, Smith concludes his most interesting article with two quotes:

“In France, one can be an anarchist, a communist or a nihilist, but not an anti-Pastorian. A simple question of science has been made into a question of patriotism.”

(Pasteur et la Rage) and

“[Pasteur] was the most perfect man who has ever entered the kingdom of science.”

(The Spectator)

If I may be so bold, I would like to offer an alternative explanation of events surrounding the vaccination of Joseph Meister and the lauded exploits of Louis Pasteur. Consider this possibility:

1. Recall that, “Early on in Pasteur’s foray into vaccines, he wanted to find an animal disease that also affected man.” Pasteur knew that while it would be laudatory to prevent disease in animals, it would be truly sublime to prevent them in humans. By the late 1870’s, if not earlier, he placed that goal above all others.

2. The challenge and competition presented by Professor Jean Toussaint, a professor at the veterinary school of Toulouse posed a threat to the legacy of Louis Pasteur. Professor Toussaint had not only tested a seemingly successful animal vaccine but also proposed an entirely different approach to vaccine development in the summer of 1880. Pasteur knew that one way to circumvent any competition would be to demonstrate success of one of his own vaccines in humans.

3. In accepting the challenge presented by Toussaint regarding the anthrax vaccine for livestock in 1881, Pasteur would have been taking a significant risk. While I cannot rule out the possibility offered by Kendall Smith that “luck favors the bold”, another possibility-more likely in my opinion- is that Pasteur was able to rig the vaccine trial in sheep.

Consider that “there were already rumors that Pasteur was really seeking to profit financially from his ‘secret remedies’ against livestock diseases” when “Pasteur ‘impulsively’ accepted the challenge and on April 28, 1881, he signed a detailed and demanding protocol, which was performed in May.” Pasteur may have been willing to split the future proceeds with those who conducted the experiment and witnessed the outcome, but only if the experiment worked out in Pasteur’s favor. Given the behavior- with regards to the Surgisphere scandal, for instance- we have witnessed of those who conduct, report and publish studies, would it be surprising to learn that the same general attitude also prevailed 150 years ago?

As Kendall Smith relates, “Parenthetically, it is noteworthy that the vaccine was manufactured commercially by Pasteur’s team, in a lab around the corner, yielding a substantial income for the new Pasteur Institute, which was initiated in 1885.”It is a peculiar trait of our syntax that parentheses indicate an item which may be deemed extraneous in prose while the very same parentheses used in mathematics demands our first and foremost attention, according to the order of operations. I suggest the mathematical approach with regard to Mr. Smith’s choice of the adverb ‘parenthetically’.

4. The note to Roux at the opening of this chapter, if interpreted with the date of 1883 (consistent with its original source), suggests Louis Pasteur was open to the possibility of testing his vaccine on humans prior a full verification in animals. The investors in the Louis Pasteur Institute, once opened in 1885, surely would have multiplied the pressure to accelerate toward this goal. Nearly four years had passed between the field test of Pasteur’s vaccine in sheep and the establishment of the Louis Pasteur Institute without a vaccine for humans being announced by Pasteur.

5. By 1885, Pasteur focused his full attention on the goal of attached his name to the development of a safe and effective vaccine for humans. A child exposed to a deadly disease would have offered a situation analogous to Covid whereby the usual ethical measures were bypassed. There is some question whether the dog which bit Meister actually even had rabies, but let us set that question aside until the next chapter. One must recognize that if the dog did indeed have rabies, it clearly would have been to the great benefit of Louis Pasteur. Without the urgency of a life-or-death crisis, there would have been no opportunity to prove the value of Pasteur’s vaccine for humans.

It is essential to recognize the importance of the “influencers” in the media and within the scientific community at the time of Pasteur’s announcement of the recovery of Joseph Meister from rabies. How different would Pasteur’s work been perceived if the largest and most influential newspapers of the time expressed skepticism and demanded proof of the existence of rabies in the dog or a detailed explanation of the development of the vaccine. It might also be worth emphasizing that the early death of Pasteur main competitor, Toussaint, at age 43 profited the investors in the Pasteur Institute; of course, this may have been a coincidence.

Carroll Quigley’s aforementioned book The Anglo-American Establishment states that:

“(I)t would appear that The Times had been controlled by the Cecil Rhodes Bloc since 1884 and was taken over by the Milner Group in the same way in which All Souls was taken over, quietly and without a struggle.” (p. 102)

And less than two years after Pasteur’s pronouncement of his success with the “therapeutic vaccination” of Joseph Meister, the unknown doctor but soon-to-be-renowned mystery writer, Arthur Conan Doyle, heaped praise upon Louis Pasteur.

This brings us back to the question of why lies were told about the death, said to be suicide, of Joseph Meister at the Pasteur Institute years later. Could it be that Meister was in the same type of position as Charles F. Ulrich and Frederick Blum? Let us consider this possibility.

Joseph Meister would have known whether he was truly sick with rabies and whether he experienced various maladies as a result of his 13 injections from Pasteur. If either (or both) were true, it would make sense for the Pasteur Institute to keep him and make sure he received enough money to remain quiet. When the Germans entered Paris in June 1940, those involved with ensuring the reputation of the Pasteur Institute (perhaps individuals working there or perhaps part of an “otherwise interested group”) recognized a rare opportunity to eliminate a potential liability. In other words, there is a distinct possibility that Joseph Meister was murdered.

***

Chapter 6: Vivisection and the “Bernards”

Among Louis Pasteur’s close associates was Claude Bernard. Recall that Fyodor Dostoyevsky, in his character Dmitri Karamazov, generalized the use of Claude Bernard’s name to be synonymous with an individual who placed science or Machiavellian strategy in a higher place than the soul or Christian belief in his proclamation of “a contemptible Bernard”. Claude Bernard is said to have met Louis Pasteur on several occasions. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29236666/

“Claude Bernard and Louis Pasteur will meet on various occasions, scientific prizes were awarded by Claude Bernard to Louis Pasteur, Claude Bernard’s lessons were followed by Louis Pasteur at the Faculty of Science or at the College de France, and a friendly relationship were established.”

Some accounts (see https://directorsblog.health.azdhs.gov/who-is-louis-pasteur/ ) even state that Pasteur and Bernard together performed the first experiment relating to what became known as “pasteurization” on April 20, 1862.

One factor in why Claude Bernard found disfavor in the view of Dostoyevsky was Bernard’s development and employment of vivisection to advance medical science. Pasteur likewise was pilloried in some quarters because of his actions although others felt the advancement of science should be of higher priority.

One fierce critic of Pasteur was Philadelphia-based doctor, Charles Dulles (see https://babel.hathitrust.org.cgi/pt?id=uc1.31378008358924&seq=1 ). In this report titled “Pasteur’s Method of Treating Hydrophobia” published by the Victoria Street Society for the Protection of Animals from Vivisection” in 1886, Dr. Charles Dulles explained how Pasteur used dogs and rabbits in his work, “pieces of the spinal cord of one of the victims are removed ‘with precautions of purity as great as it is possible to secure’.” In other words, Dulles intimates that the spinal cords of the animals (victims) were procured while they were still alive.

Importantly, he later expresses skepticism that the dog which bit Joseph Meister was rabid.

“At an autopsy the dog’s stomach was found to contain hay, straw, and bits of wood; and on this fact alone the diagnosis of rabies in the dog rests t this day. Pasteur called Dr. Vulpian and Dr. Grancher to see the boy, and they said he was most inevitably exposed to contract hydrophobia, ‘on account of the severity and the number of his bites.’

The death of this child appearing inevitable, Pasteur then decided, ‘not without keen and cruel solicitude,’ to try his new method on him. He inoculated the boy with a half syringeful of spinal cord (he says, meaning no doubt diluted or delage”) fifteen days old. [..]

In regard to the case of the boy, it may be briefly stated: First, because there is no proof that the dog that bit him was mad (everybody ought to know that the contents of a dog’s stomach are of no value as evidence of rabies), and because the boys’ wounds had cauterized, there is no reason to assume that he was in danger of having hydrophobia…”

Charles Dulles also adds the following:

“One of M. Pasteur’s patients, a girl aged ten, died of rabies while under treatment by him. This mishap Pasteur explained by saying she had come to him thirty-six days after being bitten, and that the virus in her system had made too great progress to be stopped. Its rapid action he explained on account of her youth-an assertion which is not borne out by facts-and because she had been bitten on the head, i.e., too close to the brain.”

***

Chapter 7: Buying a Stairway to Heaven- Adrien Proust compares Pasteur to Simon Magnus… and offers it as a high compliment

One scientist and doctor closely associated with Louis Pasteur was Adrien Proust, the father of author Marcel Proust. Louis Pasteur spoke of Adrien Proust in a letter, and the footnote (in English) reads (per https://www.lemanuscritfrancais.com/en/manuscript/pasteur-1822-1895/ ):

“[1] French physician, Adrien Proust (1834-1903), father of Marcel and Robert Proust, was elected a full member of the National Academy of Medicine in 1879, where he held the position of annual secretary from 1883 to 1888. He inaugurated the monument to Pasteur in Chartres shortly before his death in 1903.”

Adrien Proust served authored “Rapport Sur La Vaccine” in 1889 as part of his role in serving on the Committee for Public Hygiene of France (https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6112485t/f12.item ). Adiren Proust’s report, written in French of course, provides a myriad of statistics on diseases in various countries and suggests the benefits of not only vaccination, but also re-vaccination.

The translation from the bottom of Adrien Proust’s opening page reads:

“I emphasized the inadequacy of current legislation regarding smallpox prophylaxis, the isolation of patients, disinfection, and, more specifically, the requirement for vaccination and revaccination.”

On page 11, under the Heading “Happy Effects of Revaccination”, Proust relates:

“But vaccinating is not enough. We must revaccinate.”

Then on page 23, Adrien Proust points out that while vaccination is obligatory in both London and Berlin, re-vaccination is mandatory only in Berlin. He cites occurrence of death as far higher in London than in Berlin.

Years after authoring this report, in 1903, Adrien Proust gave a speech commemorating Louis Pasteur (www.yorktaylors.free-online.co.uk/articles/discours.xhtml and in the original French at https://www.amisdeproust.fr/images/feuilletage/brochure-AProust/files/basic-html/page31.html ) which began:

“Speech by Adrien Proust, Delegate from L’Académie de Médecine

Gentlemen,

In this town of Chartres where all epochs are in some way superimposed, from the fabled crypt of the Black Madonna which is nothing less than the ancient sanctuary of the Carnutes where Druids came to pray, to its cathedral that sets out in the middle of the plains of the Beauce the sculpted encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, it has been your wish that our own age too comes to leave, however modest it may be, a visible trace of its endeavours, as a testament to our faith. It was not your wish to aspire to a comparative monument a few paces away from one whose beauty has never been surpassed and in all likelihood never will be, but nevertheless it has been your wish to accomplish an appropriate commemoration. [..]”

His speech ends by comparing Pasteur to the magician, Magus. A translation to English reads:

“But just now I was evoking for you the memory of that encyclopedia in sculpture and paint from the Middle Ages which is the cathedral of the beautiful town that welcomes us today. I cannot help thinking, gentlemen, that in the XIIth century and even at the start of the XIIIth century, among the seven liberal arts, otherwise known as the sciences, medicine was not included. On the portals, in the stained-glass windows of our most ancient cathedrals you can easily make out geometry, astronomy, music, grammar, philology, but medicine is nowhere to be found.

And it is only a little later, in the middle of the XIIIth century that you see it appear on the portal of Reims cathedral, holding up to its eye a vial in which it is carefully examining the urine of a sick person.

On the other hand, on the portal of Chartres you will see an individual called Magus, the magician who symbolizes alchemy, hermetical study, vanquisher of evil, who grovels on his knees, and to whom this little statue was erected out of the gratitude of the men that he had preserved or saved.

It is with a no less brotherly sentiment nor with any less religious gratitude that we offer today his statue to the good magician who has delivered humanity from the scourges that were thought to be invincible and who has given hope to hopeless invalids that one day they will be cured, and that one day the microbe that causes their illness will be discovered.

Gentlemen, I was speaking to you a moment ago about the deadly plague in Florence. At that time as we have seen, it was believed that the plague was spread by disseminators who maintained pestiferous unguents in vast laboratories that they were going to diffuse everywhere. Well! scientific progress which has caused so many strange imaginings of the ancient past to leave the realm of miracles and make them enter the realm of reality, appears also to have realized this superstition that belongs to an era of naivety, but by changing its character of witchcraft to the good, like those poisons that medicine has turned into remedies. There is no doubt that it was not only in the imaginations of men of the Middle Ages that there existed laboratories in which plague germs were cultivated; today they exist in reality; the mysterious source is indeed cultivated there, but it is no longer destined to wage war against humanity, but to cure it and even to prevent the outbreak of disease. Pasteur, gentlemen, was the ingenious creator of these beneficial laboratories for which Humanity and Science will always observe an eternal gratitude.”

Adrien Proust’s reference to ‘Magus’ is commonly known as ‘Simon Magus’, and he is held in low regard in Christian doctrine. The Encyclopedia Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Simon-Magus ) describes the magician Simon Magus as follows:

“Simon Magus (flourished 1st century ad) was a practitioner of magical arts who probably came from Gitta, a village in biblical Samaria. Simon, according to the New Testament account in Acts of the Apostles 8:9–24, after becoming a Christian, offered to purchase from the Apostles Peter and John the supernatural power of transmitting the Holy Spirit, thus giving rise to the term simony (q.v.) as the buying or selling of sacred things or ecclesiastical office. Later references in certain early Christian writings identify him as the founder of post-Christian Gnosticism, a dualist religious sect advocating salvation through secret knowledge, and as the archetypal heretic of the Christian Church.”

Acts 8:9-24 (New American Standard Bible) reads as follows:

Now there was a certain man named Simon (Magus), who formerly was practicing magic in the city, and astonishing the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great; and they all, from smallest to greatest, were giving attention to him, saying, “This man is what is called the Great Power of God.” And they were giving him attention because he had for a long time astonished them with his magic arts.

But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike. And even Simon (Magus) himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip; and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed. Now, when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet fallen on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.

Now when Simon (Magus) saw that the Holy Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, saying “Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! You have no part or portion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bondage of iniquity.”

But Simon (Magus) answered and said, “Pray to the Lord for me yourselves, so that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.”

Take special note that in this account Simon Magus did not agree to repent and pray for forgiveness. Rather, he merely and perhaps sarcastically, told Peter and the other disciples to pray for him instead.

Suffice it to say that this speech in Chartres tells us much about both its subject, Louis Pasteur, and its deliverer, Adrien Proust.

***

Chapter 8: Was Marcel Proust vaccine-injured? Was his most famous work ghost-written and attributed to him?

Marcel Proust, the older son of Adrien Proust, eclipsed the fame of his father. His “A La Research du Temps Perdu” (sometimes translated to English as In Search of Lost Time) is considered to be among the greatest novels ever written. One source (https://thegreatestbooks.org/the-greatest/classic/books ) ranks it second only to James Joyce’s Ulysses.

The novel A La Research du Temps Perdu consists of seven volumes, given various translations to English:

1. Swann’s Way, published in 1913.

2. In the Shadow of Young Girls in Flower, published in 1918.

3. The Guermantes Way, published in 1920-21 (split into two volumes initially).

4. Sodom and Gomorrah, published in 1921-22 (also split into two volumes initially).

5. The Prisoner, published in 1923.

6. The Fugitive, published in 1925.

7. Finding Time Again, published in 1927.

Those among the Way Out Substack readers who have taken the time to read “Decode Part 3” ( http://thewayout.substack.com/p/learn-to-decode-part-3-an-act-of ) will recall that Ulysses may be best understood as a novel merely attributed to Joyce. In reality, as editor, Harriet Shaw-Weaver “wove” Bernard Shaw’s prose into very important sections of the book. In other words, ghostwriting played a large role in the crafting of Ulysses, and massive support from “influencers”, in the form of literary critics, played an oversized role in building the reputation of Ulysses as the GOAT – the “greatest of all time”. One might consult the Book of Daniel, Chapter 8 and reflect upon the appropriateness of this acronym for the novel.

It struck me that the second “greatest of all time” novel by Marcel Proust might also be ghostwritten by others with the credit being given to Proust, so I began to look for clues. It did not take me long to learn that Marcel Proust died prior to the publication of the last three volumes of his massive novel. Marcel Proust (10 July 1871 - 18 November 1922) is said to have died of pneumonia at age 51. The story goes that his brother, Robert, who along with his housekeeper took care of Marcel, and others assisted in taking his handwritten notes, which consisted of an enormous number of pages, and converting them to typeset.

An ‘Homage to Marcel Proust’ (see https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015065524335&seq=7 ) was published in January 1923, less than two months after Marcel Proust died. In addition to his brother Robert, more than fifty French authors and literary critics wrote passages commemorating Marcel Proust, praising him and his work, in what appears to be a kind gesture. However, one must remember that by this time, only about half of the massive novel attributed to him had even been published.

While Joyce and Proust were contemporaries, James Joyce did not contribute to the homage to Proust. However, at least one source recounts an alleged meeting between them (see https://readingproust.com/joyce.htm “Mr. Joyce, may I introduce M. Proust?”)

“I was entranced to learn, in William Carter’s superlative and Proust-sized biography, more about the fabled meeting between the great Frenchman and the great Irishman in 1922, toward, the end of Proust’s life. It was on May 15 that Proust set out for the Hotel Majestic to attend a supper in honor of the impressario Serge Diagalev and the dancers of the Ballets Russes. It was a post-performance party, so began at 12:30 a.m., which of course was the perfect time for the nocturnal Proust to bestir himself.

By this time he was seriously ill. He ate little and almost never went out in public. However, the host was Sydney Schiff, an English admirer and a longtime friend who under his pseudonym Stephen Hudson would one day translate the final volume of the Search under the title of Time Regained. In his invitation, Schiff noted that Picasso would be there, but didn’t mention the name of James Joyce, whose epochal novel Ulysses had been published in Paris two months before.

Joyce arrived late to the party (though before Proust) [..]

(A)s William Carter writes in Marcel Proust: A Life ‘Suddenly, the door opened and Proust entered, wearing a fur coat.... Joyce followed the Schiffs to the door and attached himself to Proust for the rest of the evening. Perhaps geniuses attract, or perhaps Joyce, underdressed and slightly drunk, felt more comfortable in the company of a fellow practitioner of his craft.... The creators of Leopold Bloom and Charles Swann had little to say to each other. Nonetheless, there are many variations of [their] meager exchange.... Proust, presumably unimpressed with Joyce, never related the encounter to anyone who recorded it. According to William Carlos Williams, Joyce complained about headaches and his eyes, while Proust bemoaned his poor digestion.”

The health of Marcel Proust is a widely-discussed topic among those who write about his life, and in some accounts was even described in some accounts as an “semi-invalid”. (see https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/shattuck-way.html?_r=2 ):

“At thirty, Proust was already a deeply eccentric man, and still living at home on an allowance. His preferred schedule of rising in the afternoon and going to bed at dawn estranged him from his own family. The events of the next few years came perilously close to paralyzing him. His younger brother, a doctor following in their father’s footsteps, married in 1903 and set up on his own. At the wedding, Marcel was a grotesque semi-invalid figure in several overcoats and mufflers. A few months later their father died, and Mme Proust devoted herself for two years to caring for Proust’s asthma and hay fever, and helping him translate Ruskin. She also organized dinners for his friends in their apartment. Then, after a short illness, Mme Proust died in 1905. Her son lay for almost two months in sleepless seclusion in the apartment, and then spent six weeks in a private clinic. After this, his nocturnal and neurotic behavior became more pronounced than ever.”

For another example, the Harvard Gazette in “Harvard will Devote a Semester Celebrating Marcel Proust”, 12 Feb 2013 (ref. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/02/a-remembrance-of-things-proust/ ) states:

“Famously, Proust suffered from asthma and other ailments — and just as famously would often exaggerate his delicacy, wrapping himself in scarves and greatcoats while at table in tony restaurants. Proust kept his living spaces sealed and later in life often felt well enough to write only in the middle of the night, when the air seemed more pure. But his renowned seclusion had an artistic origin, too — the sheer compulsion to write. Around 1909, his desire to complete the book he called cela — “this” — heated to boiling. That same year, he wrote a friend, finishing the work became “a duty.”

It was never a complete seclusion, said Proulx (François Proulx, a lecturer at that time in Harvard’s Department of Comparative Literature), who is eager to dispel the myth that Proust lived out his final years boxed up in cork-lined rooms. Proust still went out, sometimes scouring the late-night Hotel Ritz for friends. In addition, a voluminous correspondence kept him informed and connected. ‘They’re his lifeline to the outside world,’ said Proulx of the letters. ‘But they’re also the way to keep the world at bay.’”

Some sources report that Marcel Proust suffered from his first asthma attack when he was 9 years old while others say it occurred at age 10. If true, this would have placed his “first asthma attack” sometime between the summers of 1880 and 1882, the very timeframe during which Louis Pasteur learned of his Toussaint’s advancements in vaccine development and surely sought to leapfrog his competition by proving the success of vaccines in humans.

It is tempting to consider the possibility that the onset of Marcel Proust’s ill health was initiated by vaccine injury of one of the formulations developed by Pasteur. Suppose Marcel had become sick, say from cholera, or bitten by an unknown dog which evaded capture. Would his father, Adrien Proust, have been tempted to advocate for the administration of a potential remedy to his son, perhaps developed by Pasteur, if he believed it would work, despite having not been fully tested? If Marcel had suffered a vaccine injury as a result, would his father have publicized the matter or, rather, cover up the adverse event to preserve- and perhaps advance- his career?

But let us set aside that possibility and consider a less speculative one. Adrien Proust himself advocated fiercely for mandatory vaccination and revaccination against smallpox in 1889. Therefore, it would be logical to assume that Marcel Proust received multiple doses of the smallpox vaccine in his youth and throughout his adult life as well. How many doses did he receive, and were any of them administered around the time he had his first documented “asthma attack”?

Indeed, there is some debate about the maladies from which Marcel Proust suffered. A 2016 article in Medical Hypotheses titled, “The Real Malady of Marcel Proust and What it Reveals about Diagnostic Errors in Medicine” provides useful insight (available in part at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987716000736 ):

“Abstract

Marcel Proust, author of À La Recherche du Temps Perdu, was considered a hypochondriac not only by the numerous specialists he consulted during his lifetime but also by every literary critic who ventured an opinion on his health, among them several clinicians. However, Proust’s voluminous correspondence, as detailed in its attention to his every symptom as his novel, provides valuable clues to Proust’s real, organic, and rare illness. Proust, in fact, was not only genuinely ill but far sicker than he even he believed, most likely suffering from the vascular subtype of Ehlers–Danlos Syndrome. Ironically, Proust’s own doctors and his clinician-critics replicated the same kinds of diagnostic errors clinicians still routinely make today, shedding light on the plight of patients with rare illnesses.”

If the hypothesis happens to be correct, it should be noted that a recent medical journal article (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12225415/ ) discloses that “a strong association between POTS and Ehlers–Danlos Syndrome Type III (EDS) exists. Eighty (80) percent of patients with EDS have POTS. This severe side effect indicates that providers need to be aware of this strong association of HPV vaccinations and POTS. In this report, we will present a case of a young woman with a past medical history significant for EDS type III who was diagnosed with POTS after receiving Gardasil 4 vaccination. This case demonstrates the need for physicians to be aware of the association of POTS with EDS type III and HPV vaccination. Physician awareness of the associations, signs, and symptoms of POTS and earlier testing at the first presentation of signs and symptoms will limit the negative impact on patient’s quality of life.”

Regarding Marcel Proust, Yellowlees Douglas continued in the introduction of the article as follows:

“Literary history teems with hypochondriacs, but none as famous or prolix as Marcel Proust, who lovingly documented his every ache, fever and bout of dyspepsia in a correspondence nearly as voluminous as the pages of his novel À La Recherche du Temps Perdu. No commentary on Proust is complete without mention of his hypochondria, evidenced most recently in Alain de Botton’s How Proust Can Save Your Life, just as no history of famous hypochondriacs is complete without mention of Proust, who cropped up most recently in Brian Dillon’s recent Nine Hypochondriacs. The ranks of commentators on Proust’s hypochondria even include several clinicians, one of whom dedicated an entire monograph to Proust’s morbid preoccupation with his own ill health which, every commentator agrees, amounted to little more than relatively mild asthma exacerbated by peculiar dietary, sleep, and living habits.

This picture of Proust has only a single, but rather substantial problem, lurking in it. The same loving catalogue of aches and fevers also reveals that Proust was suffering from an organic and visceral illness. In fact, if one reads Proust’s correspondence with an eye not toward branding him a self-obsessed neurasthenic but toward understanding what afflicted him, one understands that Proust was not only genuinely ill—but almost certainly more seriously ill than even he imagined himself to be.”

Yellowlees Douglas then adds an intriguing comment:

“The more one considers Proust’s case, the more striking and puzzling the unanimous agreement about his hypochondria. However, the explanation for his literary critics’ reactions is simple. No one who complained of ill health at such length and in such detail could be genuinely ill and still manage an output of three million published words in a career begun relatively late in life.”

How could it be that all of the literary critics agreed that Marcel Proust suffered from hypochondria rather than a real disease? If we give credence to Edmund Burke, the answer lies in the existence of an “alliance of ‘men of letters’ with ‘monied interest’” (pp. 96-98, Reflections on the Revolution in France), examples of the latter being the Rhodes Group, Milner’s Kindergarten, the Rockefeller family, and the Rothschild family. According to Burke, “The literary cabal had some years ago formed something like a regular plan for the destruction of the Christian religion”.

Naturally, Rhodes and Milner are British rather than French, but remember that Burke was writing about the French Revolution when he laid out his thoughts. If one bears in mind the words of Bernard Pares (in the book Russia and Reform, published in 1907), “In 1830, a Government after the English model was adopted by France; and the two constitutional powers began to form a rival camp to that of despotism.” (p. 45) Bernard Pares adds this in the footnote, “Form, O, ye peoples, your holy alliance; join hands, join hands, all round.” –Beranger. In “Decode Part 3” ( http://thewayout.substack.com/p/learn-to-decode-part-3-an-act-of ), it is demonstrated that ‘despotism’ may be broken into a variation of a French idiom for ‘luck’: ‘des pot –ism’. The connotation is that the intelligentsia, comprised of men of letters and oligarchs of France and England, would join forces to prevent any persons outside their cabal- such as a king or elected official- from influencing or enforcing the rule of law, through the ‘luck’ of their general disposition.

The medical journal article continues:

“What ailed Proust: a differential diagnosis

On one point, Proust’s commentators all agree: the writer suffered from asthma, evident from his first attack at age ten. If we disregard the belief, held by clinicians in Proust’s day through the fifties, that asthma resulted from a morbid craving for maternal affection, what is most striking about Proust’s symptoms is that complaints about his breathing account for less than half his reports on his bodily afflictions. The rest concern the state of his stomach and bowels, with a small proportion dedicated to bodily aches and pains, as well as intermittent fevers departing as mysteriously as they arrive. Nor were these complaints due to Proust’s predilection for self-medicating or to the bizarre practices he adopted to avoid what he believed were triggers for his asthma. These practices included seldom venturing outdoors in daylight and remaining shut in a sealed bedroom, burning fumigation powders, lying swaddled in blankets and coats before a fire that blazed year-round. On the contrary, his complaints about his sinuses, stomach, bowels, and joints long pre-date his attempts to accommodate them, as evidenced in early letters to his mother during a period in which he was living and eating normally.”

Before offering a list of maladies which might have afflicted Marcel Proust, article author Yellowlees Douglas points out:

“(H)is gastroparesis also holds the key to what really ailed the writer, as gastroparesis can be symptomatic of serious, multi-system disorders. [..]

While the use of opiods can cause both gastroparesis and the constipation Proust occasionally reported, he only reported taking trional and heroin years after he first mentioned symptoms of gastroparesis. Ironically, the sedatives and painkillers Proust used to dampen the discomfort caused by his gastroparesis ended up exacerbating the very symptoms he was attempting to alleviate.”

Clearly, sometime after his initial encounter with persistent illness, it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that Marcel Proust entered a cycle of addiction. The only reasonable counter-argument one might make is that no one who is both sick and addicted to heroin could produce the volume of work required to produce À La Recherche du Temps Perdu, recalling Douglas’s statement that “No one who complained of ill health at such length and in such detail could be genuinely ill and still manage an output of three million published words in a career begun relatively late in life.”

The most logical answer to this apparent conundrum is that Marcel Proust did NOT write À La Recherche du Temps Perdu. Consider the possibility that Marcel Proust did not go out late at night to meet other authors; rather, it is possible that the authors who were ghost-writers of the novel attributed to Proust simply lied about meeting Proust at places like the Hotel Ritz. Most (or all) of the correspondence said to be between Proust and so many others clearly could have been fabricated as easily as the novel.

A principal challenge is determining which information can be relied upon, in part or in whole, and what information is completely false. One way to improve the odds of accessing the former is to look for information published contemporaneously with the novel’s publication. For example, the aforementioned An ‘Homage to Marcel Proust’ (see https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015065524335&seq=7 ), published in January 1923, would seem to be a particularly useful resource.

The advocacy of these prominent writers and critics, who so emphatically praised Marcel Proust, prompted many among the well-educated public to read his work.

And there is little doubt those prospective readers held high expectations. In October 1925, shortly after the release of the second-to-last volume of À La Recherche du Temps Perdu, The New York Times published this editorial (from https://www.nytimes.com/1925/10/01/archives/the-perfect-proustian.html ):

“One of the queerest of contemporary literary religions or mysteries is the cult of MARCEL PROUST. Among its initiates and evangelists are conspicuous English and American writers, Mr. A. B. WALKLEY and Mrs. WHARTON, for example, whose competence and intellectual sincerity are unquestioned. The profane who stand outside the temple door should be saddened as well as puzzled by a skepticism that is a confession of inferiority. Some of us have tried to qualify; would have been eager converts; but we couldn’t “get” Proustism. Perhaps we waded desperately through the original, the exceedingly original, French of the book called in English “Swann’s Way.” In a moment of petulance ANATOLE FRANCE called THIERS the worst French writer. What would he have styled PROUST? The worst non-French writer?

Perhaps he is better in English. Volume after volume of his everlasting flow about nothing has been, is being, is to be published. In The New Republic EDITH RICKERT ponders another Way-book. The trip covers 800 pages. MARCEL, it seems, holds the analysis “record”:

In the forty-eight pages in Volume 2, concerned with the grandmother’s death, less than a dozen altogether are used to present the scene or the actors; and of these pages about three would cover all the dialogue. The analysis, then, includes about three-fourths of the content. Again, in the great dinner scene, where little but description and dialogue would be looked for, at least two-thirds of nearly two hundred pages are concerned with the interpretation of the invisible. In a third passage tested only about 7 percent of a hundred pages consisted of anything but psychological analysis.

Even the raptured congregation finds the knees of its faith sagging. “Why do some of us, with an irritation that swells to exasperation, still “read on?” “Because we care about the truth.” PROUST reveals to us “some manifestations of human life that have escaped others.” His latest translated Way-book is a pretty tough nut, but let us press on in the path of perfection. PROUST, with the help of his translator, is even able to write not only an intelligible but an occasional beautiful paragraph. In short, let us be patient and brave and hopeful:

We are warned by the titles of the works yet to come to us in English that we shall descend to lower depths in “Sodom et Gomorrhe,” and that after bitter personal disillusion we shall be rewarded with the clue to the process in “Le Temps Retrouvé.” Can we persist with unflagging courage to the end?

In spite of miles of microscopic analysis, in spite of tons of admittedly indigestible sentences? Yes. We begin to see the piteous, interminable task to which the Proustians have devoted themselves. They are asking themselves: “What the devil is all this stuff about?” When they have traveled through the twenty-five thousand, or whatever the number is, of precious pages they will be able to decide, as EDITH RICKERT, torn between faith and disbelief, says, whether MARCEL was the supreme genius of his age, as many competent critics declare, or merely a clever psychoanalyst, or no more than a notoriety whom, as we know, Mr. GEORGE MOORE cannot “stomach.” Meanwhile, let those who love it sniff delightedly “pure essence of PROUST” and “essence of the Faubourg Saint-Germain.”

I agree wholeheartedly with this New York Times editorial.

A “man of letters” promptly defended the work of Marcel Proust in a letter-to-the-editor published five days later (https://www.nytimes.com/1925/10/06/archives/the-perfect-proustian.html ):

“To the Editor of The New York Times: In your editorial “The Perfect Proustian” I read: “In a moment of petulance Anatole France called Thiers the worst French writer. What would he have styled Proust? The worst non-French writer?” You may not know that Proust was introduced to the reading world by Anatole France himself. Proust’s first book, “Les Plaisirs et les Jours,” contains a very eulogistic preface by the old master, written at a time when young Marcel was entirely unknown. Proustians are people much too civilized to say that any one who does not like Proust is therefore inferior. There are types, and Proust can only appeal to some; for instance, more to introverts than to extroverts, more to analysts than to synthetists, more to philosophers than to men of action. The Proustians I know do not wish nor expect that the people (neither most nor many) will ever like Proust. The sincere Proustians will always be a minority, but that in itself does not establish a general superiority on their part. They do not wish everybody to be like themselves—they enjoy too well the spectacle provided by the diversity. In order to like Proust one must have (besides intelligence, culture and other qualities quite compatible [sp.] with a dislike for him) an unusually keen interest in psychology, and an amount of leisure that not everybody has. Proust is to be read slowly. Proust’s style is something new to us, and new reading habits are required to fully enjoy his books. We must adjust our tempo to his. Proustians might be pleased to learn that the French seminar of Cornell University is devoting the present academic year to the study of Marcel Proust. J. B. ALEMANY. Ithaca, N. Y., Oct. 1, 1925.”

The background of this “man of letters” is as follows, (per https://www.fundacioncristinamasaveu.com/en/portfolio/alemany-jose/ ):

“ALEMANY, José (Blanes, Gerona, 1895 – Provincetown, Massachusetts, 1951)

Professor of psychology and Romance languages, Alemany is considered one of the best Spanish photographers who alternated the experimental avant-garde and the romantic vision. He was a writer, lecturer and friend, among others, of Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell, developing his teaching career in the United States at the Universities of Syracuse and Cornell (NY) and the Institute of Technology in Pittsburgh. The photographs that remain of his legacy were taken between 1932 and 1942 and fundamentally capture the landscape, figures and portraits.”

Subsequently, another letter was published in the New York Times, responding to Professor Alemany ( https://www.nytimes.com/1925/10/09/archives/proust-puffed-by-the-master.html ):

“To the Editor of The New York Times: In a letter written by J. B. Alemany and published in THE TIMES Oct. 6, he gently chides the editor for not knowing that Marcel Proust was introduced to the reading world by Anatole France. While it is true that Proust’s first book, “Les Plaisirs et les Jours,” is prefaced by a puff signed by France, saluting the young boulevardier as “an Ingenuous Petronius, a depraved Bernardin de St.-Pierre,” it appears that the master did not write the preface himself, nor had he read the book it sponsored.

Mr Burton Rascoe. In the current number of Arts and Decoration, writes in praise of Proust, and then says: “Anatole France confessed to Marcel le Goff in a conversation recorded in “Anatole France a la Bechellerie” that he had never been able to read Proust and could not understand his writings. But there was the preface with which France had sponsored Proust’s literary debut. The preface was actually written by France’s belle aimee, Mme. Arman de Caillavet, although France probably polished it up a bit, added some of his own stylistic touches, and signed it. It was a practice, it seems, with France in those days to gratify aspiring young literary novices who came to him seeking to have him write prefaces to their work. France never read the books; but Mme. de Caillavet did, and whenever she found a new writer whom France could recommend without compromising his own reputation for literary taste and discrimination, she wrote the preface and France signed it.”

The very civilized Proustians will doubtless be glad to add this bit of Information to the lore they already treasure.

C. D., New York. Oct 7, 1925.”

As referenced above, Anatole France was often described as the ‘master’ of the French novel (incidentally, in French the word for novel is ‘roman’). Was the preface written in support of Marcel Proust a true statement of the true feeling of this ‘roman master’ for the author? Or was it an early example of misinformation surrounding Marcel Proust?

It occurred to me that the key to understanding Marcel Proust would lie in his first published work, Les Plaisirs et les Jours. This book was published in 1896 when Marcel Proust was 25 years old. It is comprised of several short stories coupled with descriptions of various events and places. The 3-page preface by Anatole France can be easily found (at http://archive.org/details/prefacesintroduc0000anat/page/222 ).

It is repeated in full below:

Tellingly, one phrase attributed to Anatole France is the citation of a quote credited to his contemporary, George Bernard Shaw.

“…To the goatherds of Helicon, the grave Hesiod sang the Works and Days. It would be a sadder task to sing The Pleasures and Days to the fashionable men and women of our times, if there be any truth in the saying of that English statesman who averred that ‘life would be tolerable were it not for its pleasures.’” (Shaw credited with quote at https://www.azquotes.com/quote/830304 )

Then in the second-to-last paragraph, the name ‘Bernardin’ appears in a mention of two ironic contradictions in terms. To wit, Bernardin de Saint-Pierre was widely admired for his moral character while Petronius (the Roman writer under Nero’s rule) was famous for his shrewd use of irony:

“…Such is his manner, his art. He displays in it a sureness of aim surprising in so young an archer. He is not in the least innocent. But so sincere is he, and so true, that he takes on a character of naiveté, and that in itself conveys a charm. In him there is something of a depraved Bernardin de Saint-Pierre and an ingenuous Petronius.”

Interesting the final paragraph, perhaps coincidentally, seems to foreshadow one of the best-known scenes in ‘Search for Lost Time’ when Proust’s narrator dips “a short, plump little cake called a petit madeleine” into a cup of tea. Upon tasting the madeleine in the tea, the narrator experiences an ‘exquisite pleasure’ which in turn leads to recollections of his youth:

“Fortune has smiled on this book of his. It will fare on its way through the town adorned and perfumed with the flowers which Madelaine Lemaire has showered upon it with that divine hand which scatters both roses and the roses’ dew.”

It is noteworthy that the ‘madeleine scene’ occurs in an early section of Swann’s Way, the first volume of Search for Lost Time.

I acquired an English translation (by Louise Varese) of Les Plaisirs et les Jours (translated as “Pleasures and Regrets) published in 1948, which includes the preface by Anatole France, and read the 221-page book in relatively short order. Indeed, the experience of reading this book turned out to be rewarding, but not because the writing was of high quality –far from it. Rather, I gained a much better understanding of what transpired to bring about the heralded work, À La Recherche du Temps Perdu, into being.

In the parts of the book where Marcel Proust describes inanimate objects like flowers and trees, the descriptions are drawn out with a exhausting profusion of adjectives which might, in modern times, foreshadow a possible career writing for the J. Peterman catalog.

However, whenever Marcel Proust wrote about social interactions, the work is strange, often morbid, and generally shows a complete ignorance of human nature.

His first short story in Les Plaisirs et les Jours ends with the title character, an ill middle-aged man on his deathbed, named ‘Baldassare’ with recollections of his childhood with his mother tucking him into bed, kissing him, and then warming his feet with her hands. Then he dies. Very well – Proust presents us with a tragedy of sorts, and certainly a vision of one’s mother might indeed occur in such a situation.

His second story begins with the narrator being a ‘young girl’ who is older than fifteen, though her exact age is unknown. In the first scene, she in the midst of committing suicide by shooting herself in the head. Very well- another tragedy. Once more, Proust’s narrator speaks of maternal longings:

“(S)he would come to kiss me goodnight after I was in bed, an old custom she had abandoned because it caused me too much pleasure and too much pain, because due to my calling her back to say goodnight again and again, I could never go to sleep, not daring finally to call her any more, but feeling more than ever the passionate need, always inventing new excuses, my burning pillow to be turned, my icy feet which her hands alone could warm.”

Here, it should be mentioned that the first 40 or so pages of the first volume of À La Recherche du Temps Perdu (named Swann’s Way) involves the narrator in bed early describing sleep and then begging for a kiss from his mother.

The last two short stories of Les Plaisirs et les Jours put on full display the unusual way Marcel Proust views interpersonal relationships. In ‘Melancholy Summer of Madame de Breyves’ (20 pages long an dated July 1893 in Varese’s translation), the well-to-do and attractive title character is bumped on the elbow by a man she does not know near a cloakroom, and he subsequently requests that she come to his room. Then, rather than responding in any way, she turns to talk to someone else. Later on, with no further interaction, she for some reason becomes obsessed with the elbow-bumper. She “thought him almost ugly, knew he was not intelligent.” It was his mediocrity which led to her obsession, the traits of which are drawn out and left unresolved by the end of the story.

In one typical page, Marcel Proust, only 22 years old in July 1893, compares her obsession to “the opium she craves” and the man’s glances as “more invincibly sweet than shots of morphine”.

Proust’s utterly depressing tone of the passage on this page is extended for the last three-quarters of the story.

Anyone who suspects that Proust final short story in Les Plaisirs et les Jours might be more uplifting because of its title, ‘The End of Jealousy’, is soon disappointed. What begins as a somewhat typical dating relationship between a man (Honore) and a woman (Francoise) turns into the man’s obsession for reasons which are unclear. After a lengthy description of his state of mind, Honore enters a church and, praying to God: “begged to die; prayed to be granted the peace of not loving Francoise anymore, not to go on loving her forever, so that at last he would be able to imagine her in the arms of someone else without suffering, since he could not help imagining her in the arms of someone else.” He soon begins to follow her everywhere as his state of mind deteriorates.

But then despite his behavior, strangely and abruptly, “she acquiesced with such joy at feeling him always near her that, little by little, this joy became contagious and slowly filled him with a confidence…”. In other words, she more-or-less appreciated his obsession with her. If the story had ended at this point, the reader might imagine that sometimes things just work out for two people with unusual characteristics.

Indeed, the man, Honore, wakes up with a newfound spirit less than two months after winning over his obsession and is experiencing “profound joy embellishing life that morning”, and then is… promptly run over by a horse, and both of his legs broken.

Naturally, this would be quite painful, but often one can recover from a leg injury, as others reassure him in the story. Instead, he becomes certain that his lover will leave him since he is “without legs” and that he will soon die. Honore then becomes obsessed with the idea that Francoise will take up with another man after he is dead. Proust spends several paragraphs laying out all kinds of possibilities after his death, as conjured by Honore:

“I don’t want anyone to give her more pleasure than I have given her, give her any pleasure at all. I want him to give her happiness, I want him to give her love, but I don’t want anyone to give her pleasure. I am jealous of the other man’s pleasure, I am jealous of her pleasure. I should not be jealous of their love. She must get married, she must choose carefully… But it will be sad just the same.”

Then, out of absolutely nowhere, Marcel Proust’s Honore introduces a memory of himself as a young boy being jealous that his mother would be attending a party after he had been tucked into bed to go to sleep:

“Then one of his little boy exigencies came back to him, of the little boy he was at seven when he had to go to bed every night at eight o’clock. The nights when his mother, instead of staying in her room, which was next to his, until twelve o’clock and then going to bed, had to go to some affair at eleven and until then would be busy dressing, he used to beg her to dress before dinner and to go away-anywhere, because he could not endure the idea that, while he was trying to sleep, anyone was preparing for a party, preparing to go out. And to please him and to quiet him, his mother, all dressed for the evening in her low-neck gown at eight o’clock, would come to kiss him goodnight and then would go to stay with a friend until the hour of the ball. And only in this way, grieved but calm, on those sad days when his mother was going to a ball, could he get to sleep.

Now the same prayer he had made for his mother, the same prayer to Francoise rose to his lips...”

Six ponderous pages later, Honore indeed does die – hence the ‘end of jealousy’.

By themselves, these passages would tell us little aside from the fact that Marcel Proust wrote poorly about depressing subjects until he was 25 years old.

But a story in the middle section of Les Plaisirs et les Jours is the key to understanding everything related to Marcel Proust’s literary work. It is called ‘Ambitions and Tastes of Bouvard and Pecuchet’. These are two characters borrowed from Gustave Flaubert, who some claim are used them in a satirical sense.

The difficulty which arises for Marcel Proust is that attempted satire (if it even was an attempt at satire; it is difficult to tell) can fall flat if the delivery is poor, irritating-and sometimes even enraging-the object of satire and embarrassing the would-be satirist. His story begins with Bouvard and Pecuchet engaged a discussion where “Contemporary literature is of prime importance.” After assembling a “witty parody” of one writer and criticizing another, he comes to Anatole France and says of him, and subsequently other contemporary French authors:

“As for (Anatole) France, he is a good writer but a bad thinker, the contrary of Bourget who is profound but with no sense of form. They felt sad at the scarcity of genuine talent.

And yet it ought not be so difficult, Bouvard felt sure, to express one’s thoughts clearly. But clarity is not enough, grace too (combined with forcefulness) is necessary, vivacity, elevation, and logic. He added irony. But in Pecuchet’s opinion irony is not indispensible; more often than not it fatigues and confuses the reader without benefiting him. In short, everyone writes badly. According to Bouvard the excessive desire for originality is to blame; according to Pecuchet it is due to the decadence of our morals.

‘We must have the courage to hide our conclusions in society,’ said Bouvard. ‘We would be regarded as slanderers and, frightening everyone, we would make ourselves generally unpopular. Our originality will do us enough harm as it is and we should make every effort to hide it. Better avoid talking literature in society.’

But there are other things that are important in society.

‘Take the question of bowing. Should one bow with the whole body, or the head only, slowly or quickly, just as one is or bringing the heels together, advancing or standing still, drawing in the small of the back or using it as a hinge?...”

At this point, we must take a short diversion to discuss one of the brilliant and clever works written by (perhaps I ought to use the neutral phrase ‘credited to’, but at this time I have no evidence to suggest ghost-writing) Anatole France. Anyone tempted to read À La Recherche du Temps Perdu should instead first invest their time into France’s Revolt of the Angels. As its title suggests, the book presents Satan as heroic and tells of the revolt of angels who descend from heaven (one-third of the heavenly host, to be precise) to support Satan in a revolt against God. The primary character, a ‘fallen angel’ named Arcade, begins as the guardian angel of a man who inherits oversees a vast reserve of books. After reading many of the volumes in the immense library, Arcade concludes that it would be better to fall from heaven and follow Satan.

In a revealing section (Chapter 32), Anatole France presents the fallen angel Arcade conversing with a woman collecting funds for Christian churches as Arcade responds with satire.

“After the conventional complimentary flourishes, Madame de la Verdeliére signed to Maurice to dismiss the angel. Maurice feigned not to understand. And Madame de la Verdeliére disclosed the ostensible reason of her visit.

‘Our churches,’ she said, ‘our beloved country churches,—what is to become of them?’

Arcade gazed at her angelically and sighed.

‘They will disappear, Madame; they will fall into ruin. And what a pity! I shall be inconsolable. The church amid the villagers’ cottages is like the hen amidst her chickens.’

‘Just so!’ exclaimed Madame de la Verdeliére with a delighted smile. ‘It is just like that.’

‘And the spires, Madame?’

‘Oh, Monsieur, the spires! …’

‘Yes, the spires, Madame, that stick up into the skies towards the little Cherubim, like so many syringes.’

Madame de la Verdeliére incontinently left the place.”

Thus, Anatole France implies that Christianity would be supplanted by means of worship of a substance imparted by a syringe. Whether he intends the injectant to be interpreted as an opium-based drug or a vaccine – or both- is a matter left to the reader to decide.

Near the end of The Revolt of the Angels, in Chapter 34, (https://archive.org/details/bwb_W9-ABR-575/page/335/mode/1up and in French: https://archive.org/details/larvoltedesang00fran/page/394/mode/1up )

“(Archangel) Michael, the commander-in-chief, ever loyal and brave, had lost, with the passing of centuries, his fire and enthusiasm. The conspirators of 1914, on the other hand, knew the very latest and the most delicate appliances of science for the art of destruction.”

Given that the book was copyrighted in and published in 1914 and that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand took place on 28 June 1914, the phrase ‘conspirators of 1914’ is a conspicuous choice. It suggests that one may treat the ‘fallen angels’ might be viewed a metaphor for the ‘intelligentsia’, ‘Illuminati’, or, to use Dostoyevsky’s term and my own personal favorite, ‘the Bernards’. It leads one to wonder whether Anatole France might have had some advance notice of the events which were intended to instigate World War 1.

The final chapter tells of Satan having a dream in which he conquers God.

“‘Archangel Michael, and you, Powers, Thrones, and Dominations, swear all of you to be faithful to your God.”

‘We swear it,” they replied with one voice.

And Satan said: ‘Powers, Thrones, and Dominations, of all past wars, I wish but to remember the invincible courage that you displayed and the loyalty which you rendered to authority, for these assure me of the steadfastness of the fealty you have just sworn to me.’

The following day, on the ethereal plain, Satan commanded the black standards to be distributed to the troops, and the winged soldiers covered them with kisses and bedewed them with tears.

And Satan had himself crowned God.”

But then, as the events in the dream play out, Satan reflects that if he were to claim victory over heaven, he would become too much like God. Subsequently, Satan therefore refrains from doing outward battle:

“And Satan awoke bathed in an icy sweat.

Nectaire, Istar, Arcade, and Zita (fallen angles) were standing round him. The finches were singing.

‘Comrades,’ said the great archangel, ‘no— we will not conquer the heavens. Enough to have the power. War engenders war, and victory defeat.

‘God, conquered, will become Satan; Satan, conquering, will become God. May the fates spare me this terrible lot; I love the Hell which formed my genius. I love the Earth where I have done some good, if it be possible to do any good in this fearful world where beings live but by rapine.

Now, thanks to us, the god of old is dispossessed of his terrestrial empire, and every thinking being on this globe disdains him or knows him not. [..]

And Satan, turning to the gardener, said:

‘Nectaire, you fought with me before the birth of the world. We were conquered because we failed to understand that Victory is a Spirit, and that it is in ourselves and in ourselves alone that we must attack and destroy Ialdabaoth.’”

The character Nectaire shares traits with the Greek Epicurus and, through allusions to playing pipes, the Greek god Pan. By Ialdabaoth, Anatole France alludes to God. Anatole France’s symbolism whereby the fallen angels representing the ‘Bernards’ is complete as they operate hidden outside visible governing bodies throughout the world with the goal of destroying God. Incidentally, Anatole France won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1921 for his “brilliant literary achievements”.

Many literary critics surely contend that Anatole France’s Revolt of the Angels is to be taken in the spirit of irony, and might speculate that Marcel Proust’s statement [“As for (Anatole) France, he is a good writer but a bad thinker.”] was also irony. Remember, however, this work by Proust was published when Proust was only 25 years old and unknown whereas and when the highly respected ‘roman master’ Anatole France was age 52. Surely, under the circumstances of ambiguous irony a best, it would have been taken by France to be an insult.

Likewise, but many other writers of the day would have taken offense to the upstart Marcel Proust’s denigration of French ‘men of letters’ with:

“They felt sad at the scarcity of genuine talent.”

“In short, everyone writes badly.”

And ‘We must have the courage to hide our conclusions in society’.

How do you think the French ‘men of letters’ reacted these comments and to the line: “(I)rony is not indispensible; more often than not it fatigues and confuses the reader without benefiting him.”?

It would seem that this statement reflected Marcel Proust’s own views since nothing else within Les Plaisirs et les Jours is ironic.

To answer this question, ask yourself, “How would the writers of ironic humor for ‘Monty Python’ or the popular American TV show ‘South Park’ react to being called incompetent by someone with practically neither experience nor talent for writing?” To ‘give the devil his due’, so to speak, one must admit that ‘men of letters’ like Anatole France-and the writers for South Park- are quite clever and gifted in the art of expression. Surely, these insults would have been viewed as an open invitation to satirize the exceptional morose and comically tedious writer, Marcel Proust.

***

Chapter 9: The curious case of the translations of John Ruskin, given that Marcel Proust hardly spoke English

Despite the advocacy by Anatole France in its preface, Proust’s first work published in 1896 was not widely read. Subsequently, there was a rather long 8-year gap (1896 to 1904) between any sort of publications by Proust, which raised many questions once Proust’s so-called masterpiece became popular, a point to which we will return shortly. Proust’s next two published works, released in 1904 and 1906 respectively, consisted of translations of works by the English author and Oxford University’s first Slade Professor of Fine Art John Ruskin (1819-1900).

Some passages from “The Philosopher Net” website https://thephilosopher.net/prust/wp-content/uploads/sites/369/2025/04/On-Reading-Proust-Marcel.pdf includes an English translation of the lengthy preface (titled “On Reading”) which introduces Ruskin’s work. This preface, originally written in French and attributed to Marcel Proust, and a foreword sheds some light on the presently accepted story of how Proust’s two translated works came into existence, along with some context on the two Ruskin works he translated. Some of the material must be ‘taken with a grain of salt’; bold font indicates the more pertinent portions. The paper at this website also includes a partial text of John Ruskin’s Sesame and Lilies with footnotes attributed to Proust and provides framework for discussion points herein.

To begin, one might ask why John Ruskin was chosen by Marcel Proust, to such a degree that Proust is sometimes called a “disciple” of Ruskin. A second question one might raise is why the two works – The Bible of Amiens and Sesame and Lilies, among many written by John Ruskin, were selected for translation.

“Although little read today, John Ruskin (1819-1900) was one of the most influential writers and thinkers of the nineteenth century. (p. 7) [..]

Proust [..] turned to studying French Gothic architecture, making Ruskinian pilgrimages (as did many art-lovers at the time, before widespread art photography), and writing articles on Ruskin. By early 1900, Proust claimed to know Ruskin’s Seven Lamps of Architecture, The Bible of Amiens, Lectures on Literature and Painting, Val d’Arno, and almost-600-page autobiography Praeterita ‘by heart’ (Tadié 350), and had decided to translate him.…”

(For Proust), first came The Bible of Amiens, [..] Ruskin’s only book to do with France, being simultaneously about French history, a French city, and the French Gothic style’. The ‘Bible’ in question is the Amiens Cathedral. [..]

Along with translating The Bible of Amiens, Proust added hundreds of footnotes, which often devour the page of Ruskin to which they are ostensibly attached.”

That John Ruskin was said to be so admired by Marcel Proust is remarkable given that Ruskin resigned his professorship at Oxford due to the university’s “vote endowing vivisection”, a practice supported by Adrien Proust and carried out by his colleagues, most notably Louis Pasteur.

The letter of resignation (given at the website https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/ruskin/33OurFathershavetoldus.pdf ) is included with the very same Bible of Amiens and several other works by Ruskin. It is placed in a preface written in 1908. The introduction to his work includes additional letters written by Ruskin to a friend, one of which precedes his resignation from Oxford by a few months (p. LIV). First, in chronological order, here is one letter to a colleague from John Ruskin:

“December 1, 1884.—I’ve been in a hard battle here these eight weeks,—the atheistic scientists all against me, and the young men careless, and everything going wrong—so that I have had to fight with sadness and anger in all my work. My last lecture is to be given to-morrow, but I have been feeling more tired in this cold weather, and the correspondence is terrible. I have never a moment to draw or do anything I like—except throw myself on my bed and rest, or listen to any good music if I can get it quietly.”

The letter to the newspaper follows a few months later. Ruskin “resigned on 22 March 1885, and in the Pall Mall Gazette of April 21” his letter was made public (page LVI) as follows:

“BRANTWOOD , April 24 [1885].

“SIR ,—By mischance I have not till to-day seen your kindly-meant paragraphs on my resignation of the Slade Professorship at Oxford. Yet, permit me at once to correct the impression under which they were written. Whatever may be my failure in energy or ability, the best I could yet do was wholly at the service of Oxford; nor would any other designs, or supposed duties, have interfered for a moment with the perfectly manifest duty of teaching in Oxford as much art as she gave her students time to learn. I meant to die in my harness there, and my resignation was placed in the Vice-Chancellor’s hands on the Monday following the vote endowing vivisection in the University, solely in consequence of that vote, with distinct statement to the Vice-Chancellor, intended to be read in Convocation, of its being so. This statement I repeated in a letter intended for publication in the University Gazette, and sent to its office a fortnight since. Neither of these letters, so far as I know, has yet been made public. It is sufficient proof, however, how far it was contrary to my purpose to retire from the Slade Professorship that I applied in March of last year for a grant to build a well-lighted room for the undergraduates, apart from the obscure and inconvenient Ruskin school; and to purchase for its furniture the two Yorkshire drawings by Turner of Crook of Lune and Kirkby Lonsdale—grants instantly refused on the plea of the University’s being in debt.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

JOHN RUSKIN.”

This introduction written by Sir Edward Tyas Cook, who is described as an “English journalist, biographer, and man of letters. [..] In August 1888, Cook was recruited by his friend Alfred Milner for a part-time position with the Pall Mall Gazette.” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tyas_Cook ) The material surrounding these two letters in the introduction, written in 1908 by Sir E.T. Cook, juxtaposed to these letters attempts to diminish the association between Ruskin’s resignation and Oxford University’s support of vivisection.

Is it possible that the preface and translation attributed to Marcel Proust was also intended to downplay the role that vivisection played in John Ruskin’s resignation from Oxford? By adding a preponderance of footnotes “which often devour the page of Ruskin”, the work attributed to Proust would, for some readers, overshadow the original work by Ruskin. Was the goal of the translation of Bible of Amiens to diminish John Ruskin himself? Consider that Ruskin’s resignation preceded Pasteur’s treatment of Jacob Meister by only four months.

One might reason that the choice of the Bible of Amiens would make sense given the topic is France, but a second reason may have to do with the Christian themes. The use of vivisection led some Christian leaders to speak out against the practice, including John Ruskin himself.

At a meeting held at Oxford on 9 December 1884, the Bishop of Oxford and John Ruskin spoke at a meeting of anti-vivisectionists, and an account is available (see https://archive.org/details/b2235105x/page/6/mode/1up ). The Bishop of Oxford and Professor Ruskin are reported to have spoken as follows:

The Bishop spoke first: “His Lordship said he would like to say chiefly one thing that he felt that this question which had more immediately brought them together was in fact part of a much larger question, which he thought would more and more come before them, and would call upon them to speak and think and act. He thought so for this reason, that those who maintained the right to torture living creatures were now in the habit of meeting their opponents with a sneer. [..] He thought he seemed to perceive behind that statement the assertion of might against right — but at all events of might — that the strong should rule. They could rule, and because they could rule therefore they were to put aside feelings which of themselves had nothing to do with strength, and were in fact given them by the Author of their being especially as a protection to the weak. (Applause.) The strong would not allow this protection to take effect, and he thought he seemed to hear the same kind of sneer which was now so common against their cause in far different connections. He thought he could recall the echo of it in all that he had read of the days when William Wilberforce secured liberty for the slave. He was ridiculed, sneered at, and utterly despised by the generation with which he began to plead, and over whom he ultimately prevailed. But how he and the rest fought then way against a perfect hailstorm of sneers and reproaches must be known to many to whom he was speaking. Long after that time, was it not even said by great jurists on the other side of the water that a slave had no rights which a white man was bound to respect, and they sneered at those wretched philanthropists who talked of the emancipation of slaves very much as persons sneered at Antivivisectionists now. (Hear, hear)”

Then it was Professor Ruskin’s turn to speak:

“Professor Ruskin said he had learnt much from the speakers, but there were one or two points which he should wish to refer to. It was not the question whether experiments taught them more or less of science. It was not the question whether animals had a right to this or that in the inferiority they were placed in to mankind. It was a question — What relation had they to God, what relation mankind had to God, and what was the true sense of feeling as taught to them by Christ the Physician. The primary head and front of all the offending against both the principle of mercy in men and the will of the Creator of these creatures was the ignoring of that will in higher matters, and these scientific pursuits were now defiantly, provokingly, insultingly separated from the science of religion ; they were all carried on in defiance of what had hitherto been held to be compassion and pity, and of the great link which bound together the whole of Creation from its maker to the lowest creature.

For one secret discovered by the torture of a thousand animals, a thousand means of health, peace and happiness were lost, because the physician was continually infecting his students not with the common rabies of the dog but with the rabies of the man, infecting them with all kinds of base curiosity, infecting the whole society which lie taught with a thirst for knowing things which God had concealed from them for his own good reason, and promoting amongst them passions of the same kind. No physician now dwelt in the least upon the effect of anger, upon the effect of avarice, upon the effect of science itself pursued without moral limit; and the rabies of all defiance and contradiction to all the law of God had become the madness abroad which was without reason at all, and was setting itself against everything that was once holy, once pure, once reverenced among them.

For his part, he thought they must not dwell upon minute questions as to whether this or that quantity of pain was inflicted. The question was that here in Oxford their object was to make their youths and maidens gentle, and it seemed to him that they might at least try to concentrate then- efforts to prevent these subjects of science being brought into contact with the minds of the noblest youths and maidens who came there to be made gentlemen and ladies. Their noblest efforts and energies should be set upon protecting the weak and informing the ignorant of things which might lead them to happiness, peace, and light, and above all other things upon the relation existing between them and the lower creation in this life. He had always said that a gentleman was primarily distinguished by his fellowship with the nobler animals of creation, and the peasant chiefly by the kindness which he showed to every useful one.” (Applause.)

It should be stressed that the position with respect to vivisection taken by Professor John Ruskin of Oxford was remarkably similar to that of Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Both authors relied heavily on Christian themes to support their common stance.

Vivisection carried out under the premise that man is superior to animals is particularly pernicious when combined with the Nietzschean principle -channeling Darwin- that man is simply is another animal without any metaphysical ‘spark of the divinity’. If a group of scientists were to find vivisection to be acceptable for animals and additionally viewed man as merely as merely an animal- as Nietzsche and Darwin did, would ‘atheist scientists’ carry out experiments on humans they deem to be inferior to themselves? We learned the answer to this question is affirmative, mere decades after Ruskin and Dostoyevsky staked their position, as the crimes against humanity carried out at Dachau, Tuskegee, Guatemala, and elsewhere demonstrate.

***

Chapter 10 Ruskin’s advice to read letter by letter- An object lesson with ‘Mahomet’

Now consider the second of Ruskin’s translated work in detail. Returning to the excerpted material form ‘On Reading’ ( https://thephilosopher.net/prust/wp-content/uploads/sites/369/2025/04/On-Reading-Proust-Marcel.pdf , with emphasis added to commentary which is both important and more likely to be factual):

“(Later, Proust) turned to Sesame and Lilies, Ruskin’s best-selling book in his lifetime out of the 160 he wrote, with over 160,000 copies in print by 1900: a treatise on education, [..] and a hymn to the power of reading. Along with more copious footnotes, Proust added a long preface called ‘On Reading’, which describes childhood memories. [..]

His beloved mother would die while Proust was correcting the proofs of Sesame and Lilies, in September 1905, and instead of dedicating the second Ruskin translation to her, as the first was dedicated to his father, he systematically went through ‘On Reading’ and changed all references to his mother to an ‘aunt’ [..]

I should add here a note on Proust’s translation methods because Proust was far from fluent in English - by some accounts practically unable to speak it, though he could certainly read it and spent years immersing himself in Ruskin in particular. His mother, and later an English friend Marie Nordlinger (whom Proust was delighted to discover was from Rusholme, where Ruskin had delivered the Sesame and Lilies lectures), provided Proust with first drafts in French which Proust then reworked and reworked again, making ‘countless’ manuscript corrections.

From the beginning, many have been skeptical of this process, as though Proust were somehow cheating. [..] (B)oth French and English readers marveled at how well Proust captured Ruskin’s meaning and style. [..]

The second half of ‘On Reading’, after Proust turns back to his task of introducing, analysing, and arguing against Ruskin, is Proust the critic at his most brilliant and Proust the self-analyst at his most revealing. [..]

Finally, he ends ‘On Reading’ with his great theme, recapturing the past. Compare the despondent conclusion to his first Ruskin preface, just two years earlier, when he had not yet discovered his techniques…”

Pause to reflect how difficult it would be to translate a work from a language by a person “practically unable to speak it.” Yet somehow, the challenges by those “skeptical of the process” by which Marcel Proust is said to have translated these two works seem to be ignored by modern literary critics.

Moreover, one might expect a translator to extol the virtues of the insights of the author. If the insights are deemed inadequate, why would one bother to read the translator’s book? Yet Marcel Proust is said to be “arguing against Ruskin”.

For example, some examples from the above link (On Reading Translator’s Preface to Sesame and Lilies attributed to Marcel Proust) include:

“(p. 32): If Ruskin had drawn the proper inferences from the other truths he states a few pages later, he would probably have come to a conclusion analogous to my own. But clearly he was not trying to get to the heart of the idea of reading.

To instruct us in the value of reading, he wanted merely to recount for us a kind of beautiful Platonic myth, with the simplicity of the Greeks who have revealed to us almost all the true ideas and left to scrupulous modernity the task of thoroughly plumbing their depths.

But even if I think that reading, in its essence, this fruitful miracle of communication in the bosom of solitude, is something more, something other than what Ruskin says it is, I nevertheless do not think that we can grant it the preponderant role in our spiritual life which Ruskin seems to assign to it.”

Is it a coincidence that Marcel Proust’s scathing critique of French men of letters (“scarcity of genuine talent [..] in short, everyone writes badly”) in one short story within Les Plaisirs et les Jours happened to be the same general subject matter as Ruskin’s Sesame and Lilies?

“(p. 46): Literary men remain, despite everything, the intellectual aristocracy, and not to know a certain book, a certain fact about the world of literature, will always be, even in a man of genius, a sign of intellectual commonness. Distinction and nobility - in the realm of the mind as well - consist in a sort of freemasonry of secret signs, and in having inherited certain traditions.”

With these statements by “Proust” in mind, consider a specific portion of John Ruskin’s statements in Sesame and Lilies which underlies the reason for its alleged translation by Proust. John Ruskin’s works are typically divided into numbered sections, which may comprise between one and five paragraphs each. Sections 14 provides context for Section 15. In turn, Section 15 yields an especially important message.

“14. [..] When you come to a good book, you must ask yourself, ‘Am I inclined to work as an Australian miner would? Are my pickaxes and shovels in good order, and am I in good trim myself, my sleeves well up to the elbow, and my breath good, and my temper?’ And, keeping the figure a little longer, even at the cost of tiresomeness, for it is a thoroughly useful one, the metal you are in search of being the author’s mind or meaning, his words to us are as the rock you have to crush and smelt to get at it. And your pickaxes are your own care, wit, and learning; your smelting furnace is your own thoughtful soul. Do not hope to get at any good author’s meaning without those tools and that fire; often you will need sharpest, finest chiseling, and patientest fusing, before you can gather one grain of the metal.

15. And, therefore, first of all, I tell you earnestly and authoritatively (I know I am right in this), you must get into the habit of looking intensely at words, and assuring yourself of their meaning, syllable by syllable – nay, letter by letter. For though it is only by reason of the opposition of letters in the function of signs, to sounds in the function of signs, that the study of books is called ‘literature,’ and that a man versed in it is called, by the consent of nations, a man of letters instead of a man of books, or of words, you may yet connect with that accidental nomenclature this real fact, -that you might read all the books in the British Museum (if you could live long enough), and remain an utterly ‘illiterate,’ uneducated person; but that if you read ten pages of a good book letter by letter, that is to say, with real accuracy, - you are forevermore in some measure an educated person. The entire difference between an education and non-education depends on this…”

Significantly, the translation alleged to be that of Marcel Proust adds an enlightening footnote just after John Ruskin’s parenthetical comment “(I know I am right in this)”: “Sometimes Ruskin gives profound advice without revealing his reason for giving it, the way a doctor cannot give a full physiological explanation to a patient in order to justify his prescription; it may seem arbitrary to the patient but another doctor, if you told him about it, would judge it to be quite correct.”

Permit me to give a specific example of what is meant by looking intensely at a word, letter by letter. In the works credited to Marcel Proust and those of George Bernard Shaw, the very same word is used when speaking of Muhammed (or Mohammed), the prophet of Islam. Both Proust and Shaw use the name Mahomet, with precisely the same spelling, despite the otherwise significant differences between French and English. Consider the etymology of this word (via https://www.etymonline.com/word/Mahomet ):

“Mahomet: a popular form of the name Muhammad (the prophet of Islam) in Middle English, late 14c., via Old French. Other Middle English variants, dating back to circa 1200, include Makomete, macomete, machamete, machamote, mahimet, mahumet macumeth, makamed. In Middle English maumet was “a representation of a pagan deity, an idol” (c. 1200); “a false god” (mid-14c.), from Old French mahumet; hence also maumetrie “worship of pagan deities, idolatry.” A curious misunderstanding of a prophet and faith notable for severe monotheism. Related: Mahometan.”

By Proust (p. 57): https://ia802807.us.archive.org/9/items/labibledamiensstr00rusk/labibledamienstr00rusk.pdf

By Shaw (p. 323): https://ia600709.us.archive.org/6/items/back00tomethuselahshawrich/back00tomethuselahshawrich_bw.pdf

The name Mahomet is still occasionally used in certain context in French, despite the fact that words ending in –et (such as gourmet, bouquet, and the impressionist painters Monet and Manet) often correspond to a “long a” sound for ‘-et’.

By contrast, the frequency of use of Mahomet in English had dropped long before Bernard Shaw, the well-known Fabian, used it regularly in his 1921 book Back to Methusaleh.

In addition to questions which might be raised by the etymology of the name given above, consider also that Mahomet may be split into the parts:

Ma – (meaning “my” in French), home, t (with the ‘t’ symbolizing Christians).

Thus, observing the word Mahomet, letter-by-letter as John Ruskin advocates, one may interpret it as Mahomet as meaning “My home, Christians.” Given the initial use of the word in roughly 1200 AD, one might even consider the possibility that Mahomet is a veiled allusion to the Crusades, despite this premise lying outside the bounds of accepted etymology.

Consider the dialogue, set forth by Bernard Shaw in a fictional future of year 3000 A.D., in the picture below, in his Back to Methusaleh futuristic novel, in particular the statement:

“There can be no doubt, I am afraid, that by clinging too long to the obsolete features of the old pseudo-Christian Churches we allowed the Mahometans to get ahead of us at a very critical period of the development of the Eastern world. When the Mahometan Reformation took place, it left its followers with the enormous advantage of having the only established religion in the world in whose article of faith any intelligent and educated person could believe.”

Is it a coincidence that the Fabian Bernard Shaw’s Back to Methusaleh envisioned the elimination of the Christian church in England in favor of Islam, given current events in Britain where influential Fabians hold considerable power? Moreover, lest ye be deceived, by employing the term ‘Mahometan Reformation’, Shaw’s character implies the subsequent elimination of Islam as well. Consider:

“All I can tell you is that Mahomet was a truly wise man; for he founded a religion without a Church; consequently when the time came for a Reformation of the mosques there were no bishops and priests to obstruct it.”

As to what would replace both Christianity and Islam, Shaw expresses this thought in his work of fiction:

“No doubt we had to make a few compromises as a matter of good taste; but there is now very little in our Articles of Religion that is not accepted as at least allegorically true by our Higher Criticism.”

Does Bernard Shaw’s term “Higher Criticism” suggest a future where Literary Critics replace God (or Allah) as the all-knowing power of the Universe? Indeed, Professor John Ruskin was most emphatically correct. Understanding words, letter by letter, is the key to education.

People of faith, behold your most dangerous and treacherous adversary. Satanists benefit each time one group of worshipful people is pitted against another one.

It would be a pity to move on without remark briefly upon the keen insight of other valuable passages written by John Ruskin, who unfortunately is said to “be little read today”. For instance, Sesame and Lilies includes a highly informative analysis of female characters in Shakespeare’s plays. Here is just one more excerpt from Ruskin’s own preface to the edition of 1882:

“(T)here is such a thing as essential goodness and as essential evil, in books and in art, and in character; - that this essential goodness and badness are independent of epochs, fashions, opinions, or revolutions; and that the present extremely active and ingenious generation of young people, in thanking Providence for the advantages it has granted them in the possession of steam whistles and bicycles, need not hope materially to add to the laws of beauty in sound or grace in motion, which were acknowledged in the days of Orpheus, and of Camilla.”

***

Chapter 11 A theory of the events which led to A La Research du Temps Perdu

It is said that the first volume of Marcel Proust’s greatest work, A La Research du Temps Perdu,was turned down by publishers three times before Bernard Grasset accepted money to publish the first volume, Swann’s Way, in the year 1913. The 17-year gap between the publication dates (excepting the alleged prefaces and notes on Ruskin) of what is understood to be original works by an author is unusually long.

It seems appropriate at this juncture, with sufficient groundwork laid, to lay out a theory on what transpired to bring A La Research du Temps Perdu into being.

1. Theory: Marcel Proust was vaccine-injured. It may be that an initial vaccine caused his first symptoms, or it may be that a vaccine exaggerated a pre-existing health condition (e.g., asthma or EDS). It is possible that a smallpox vaccine caused an injury, or it is possible that a vaccine under development caused an injury. If both Pasteur and Adrien Proust truly believed an untested vaccine treatment would was safe and effective and would somehow benefit Marcel, might they have tried it as a potential remedy? If they did, and if it caused health problems for Marcel, would either have reported it?

To protect the reputation of his father, Adrien Proust, and that of Louis Pasteur and other scientists of the day, it was necessary to blame his various maladies on hypochondria and asthma. This also had the effect of protecting the “monied interest” (with eventual investments in the Pasteur Institute) which supported mandatory vaccination and repeated re-vaccination of the general public.

2. It was necessary to limit Marcel’s activities in public, and so his parents, and perhaps others, supported his writing. His first book, Les Plaisirs et Jours, was authentically written by Marcel Proust and published in 1896 at the age of 25. By that time, the phrases “the opium she craved” and “sweet morphine” used by one of his characters suggests he was already taking opiates, which compounded his health problems and led to a cycle of addiction.

3. Over time, as Marcel Proust’s health worsened and his addiction increased, it became advantageous to generate a stream of income for him. His benefactors (“monied interest”) paid “men of letters” to translate Ruskin’s works, mainly because Ruskin’s view opposed their own. By “translating” Ruskin with sufficient commentary these “men of letters” managed to pillory Ruskin without fear of attribution.

4. After the deaths of Proust’s father (in 1903) and mother (in 1905), Marcel Proust’s health surely continued to decline. Still, a disclosure of his health difficulties while still relatively young (in his thirties and forties) would have raised many questions about vaccines. To perpetuate the myth that Marcel Proust was leading a life of vitality, it was also necessary to cover up any association with vaccine injury and to provide him with a public persona which includes frequent socializations. These socializations were said to take place late at night only. The “monied interest” thus supported “men of letters” to prepare what were said to be original manuscripts written by Proust while simultaneously describing social events with Proust. These social meetings “at the Hotel Ritz” were claimed to be at a time when few witnesses would be present (late at night) to avoid questions about whether any independent eyewitness accounts existed.

5. The “men of letters” (ghost) wrote the passages in Swann’s Way as an ironic parody of Marcel Proust’s Plaisirs et Jours. This was done in part to mock Marcel’s characterization (whether it was a failed attempt at irony or simply an straightforward criticism) of the state of literature as “lacking talent”. Thus, the volumes are intended to be tedious and exhausting to read -without plot or character development, and exceptionally drawn out – the outcome being what Proust’s character attributed to ironic writing. The cascading levels of irony are truly impressive, if we are to be objective about the matter.

Many writers contributed different sections, which results in a disjointed work, also a characteristic trait of Plaisirs et Jours. It must have been a formidable challenge for “men of letters”, being capable writers, intentionally to assemble such a dreadful manuscript.

6. With support of the “monied interest”, the “men of letters” (being in an authoritative position), sang the merits of A La Research du Temps Perdu. Many literary critics still praise it to this day as one of the greatest works of literature ever produced. Because so few people actually read A La Research du Temps Perdu, the “men of letters” even today are in a position to extol its virtues. The Hans Christian Anderson children’s short story, Emperor’s New Clothes comes to mind.

6. By the time of Marcel Proust’s “death due to pneumonia” at age 51 on 18 November 1922, his books had enough acclaim that some in the public certainly must have become curious about his books due to the promotion by the “monied interest” and men of letters”.

Allow me to propose a variation, perhaps unlikely, to this theory: Is it possible that Marcel Proust died at a much earlier age? I would not rule out such a possibility since an early death (even before age 50) may have led to many more questions about its cause. If Marcel Proust had died at a much earlier age, those surrounding him pretending he was still alive may have pocketed money from the works ghost-written under his name. The very notion of pretending a man is alive when he is actually dead seems far-fetched notion, does it not? And as a matter of fact, it was the plot of the 1989 movie, “Weekend at Bernie’s”.

A more likely possibility, in my view, is that Marcel died at age 51 due in part to his deteriorating health, which was caused in part by vaccine injury and also by opium addiction.

7. Despite Marcel Proust’s death, his notebooks were said to be the source of the material for the final three volumes of A La Research du Temps Perdu. A glance at the Homage to Marcel Proust shows a sample of a few pages within the supposed notebook and illustrates the preposterous notion of anyone using the haphazard writing with many materials.

To publish an author’s work posthumously without significant input from others requires that the material be prepared in good order prior to the author’s death. Indeed, several of Proust’s modern analysts have little choice but to admit this fact, for example (from https://lithub.com/marcel-proust-was-almost-impossible-to-edit/ ):

“When Marcel Proust died in November 1922 only The Way by Swann’s, In the Shadow of Young Girls in Flower, The Guermantes Way and Sodom and Gomorrah had been published; The Prisoner, The Fugitive and Finding Time Again were still in manuscript. But the phrase ‘in manuscript’ gives a wholly inadequate idea of the task facing his original editors. Proust composed by an immensely complex process of writing and rewriting, weaving together passages sometimes composed years apart, filling his margins with additions and, when the margins ran out, continuing on strips of paper glued to the pages.

Some of the most memorable passages in The Prisoner, the death of Bergotte, for example, appear for the first time only in these last-minute ‘paperoles.’ After a time he would have a clean copy typed, but this by no means marked the end of the rewriting process, which might continue to the proof stage and beyond.

As he never saw proofs of The Prisoner, the only thing of which we can be certain is that, had he lived to sign the bon à tirer (ready to print), the book would have been considerably different from the one we have now.”

From the Homage, there are some examples of Marcel Proust’s scribblings:

And here is what is said to be the final page written by Marcel Proust before he died:

Is it truly possible for anyone to transcribe unambiguously this combination of scribbling and inserts? For example, note that the very last page of the last volume of to Proust’s A La Research du Temps Perdu is included among the sample pages, even though it was not published until five years later. Are multiple interpretations possible?

In essence, a rational evaluation of the circumstances suggests that the general reading public has been hoodwinked into believing that Marcel Proust generated a masterpiece. In fact, as the aforementioned New York Times editorial of 1925 characterization states, the novel equates to “miles of microscopic analysis, in spite of tons of admittedly indigestible sentences”. The very name of the novel A La Research du Temps Perdu may be translated, “In Search of Lost Time”, perhaps an ironic witticism imparted by the “men of letters” at the expense of the more gullible members of the reading public.

***

Chapter 12: The ‘little devil of Magione’ demonstrates one example of how and why to read.

Does this mean that A La Research du Temps Perdu is a complete waste of time to read? Not quite. In fact, once a person understands what actually transpired to generate the work, certain parts may be quite useful, and here is one example.

One “Proust” character is an older author named Bergotte, as mentioned above. This character dies in the volume, The Prisoner, published in 1923. Some believe the model for Bergotte is Anatole France, but as will be shown this seems unlikely. Bergotte dies while admiring the painting Vermeer’s View of Delft. (See https://www.essentialvermeer.com/proust/proust.html , which includes several references omitted here for clarity):

“Marcel Proust’s À la recherche du temps perdu (fig. 1) contains a well-known passage in which the elderly writer Bergotte visits a Dutch art exhibit and, while examining a detail of Vermeer’s View of Delft, falls ill, and dies. That scene, that painting, that detail have attracted the attention of a multitude of critics: Bergotte’s final thoughts before dying perhaps more than any other faithfully reflect Proust’s idea of art. But which part of Vermeer’s View of Delft, if any, picture corresponds to the noted ‘petit pan de mur jaune’?

Towards the end of his fifty-one years of life, Proust told the writer Jean-Louis Vaudoyer (1883 - 1963) that Vermeer had been ‘my favorite painter since the age of twenty.’ [..]In September 1902, when he was thirty-one, Proust [..]traveled to Bruges, Antwerp, and Amsterdam, then went to Dordrecht and Delft. On October 18, he moved on to The Hague where he saw the View of Delft and ‘recognized it for the most beautiful picture in the world.’ [..]

Through Vermeer Proust meditated his own end. In May 1921, the exhibition of Dutch painting (in Paris) [..] featured works from the Dutch Golden Age, which included paintings from the seventeenth century, as well as more contemporary Dutch artists. Visitors had the opportunity to see pieces by renowned Dutch painters like Rembrandt, Vermeer, and Hals, alongside works by modern Dutch artists. Vermeer was among the most talked about, painters despite only three canvases being exhibited: View of Delft, The Milkmaid, and Girl with a Pearl Earring. [..] At last he decided he had to go and see them. At nine one morning, a time when he is usually just going to sleep, Proust sent a message to Vaudoyer asking him to accompany him to the Jeu de Paume. Leaving the apartment he had a terrible attack of giddiness, recovered from it, and went on downstairs. At the exhibition, Vaudoyer steadied the writer’s shaky progress towards the View of Delft. Proust was apparently revived by Vermeer, for he managed to go on to the Ingres exhibition and then to lunch at the Ritz before returning home, though according to Painter he was still “shaken and alarmed” by the attack. He never went out again. [..]

Proust soon transmuted this experience into the La Prisonniare (The Captive), the fifth part of A la recherche du temps perdu, to which he was still making changes. His character Bergotte, a writer, had been ill. Bergotte slept badly, had nightmares and couldn’t write anymore. But he (Proust) had read in a newspaper that the View of Delft was to be seen in Paris, a painting he adored and imagined he knew by heart, though the article had referred to ‘a little patch of yellow wall’ in the picture as being like a ‘priceless specimen of Chinese art, or a beauty that was sufficient in itself’ and worryingly he couldn’t recall that particular patch.

The supposed identity of Proust’s little patch of yellow wall in Vermeer’s View has been analyzed by a number of literary and painting critics but surprisingly, there is no consensus on just which area the French writer had in mind.”

The article proceeds to provide several different opinions from “men of letters” of the day about the location of the ”yellow wall” (“mur jaune”) in the Vermeer painting.

Consider that the prior discussion surrounding William J. Burns (the man circa 1900) suggests that some (or many) of Vermeer’s works may instead have been painted by Charles F. Ulrich. Notably, the View of Delft has a sufficiently documented history to indicate that it is an authentic Vermeer painting. One might conclude, however, that its existence and characteristics, once studied and understood, yielded the idea of producing ‘counterfeit Vermeers’ for profit.

Likewise, the theory laid out above suggests that Marcel Proust did not write the passage, even though it is credited to him. Thus, one should examine this passage closely and seek hidden meanings.

Let us consider a different way of interpreting the phrase, said to be uttered by the character Bergotte, specifically using language games.

The French version (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergotte ) of the well-known scene is:

“Il se répétait : ‘Petit pan de mur jaune avec un auvent, petit pan de mur jaune.” Cependant il s’abattit sur un canapé circulaire ; aussi brusquement il cessa de penser que sa vie était en jeu et, revenant à l’optimisme, se dit : “C’est une simple indigestion que m’ont donnée ces pommes de terre pas assez cuites, ce n’est rien.” Un nouveau coup l’abattit, il roula du canapé par terre, où accoururent tous les visiteurs et gardiens. Il était mort. Mort à jamais ? Qui peut le dire ?”

The phrase “Petit pan de mur jaune avec un auvent, petit pan de mur jaune” is a very important phrase, said to be among the last words uttered by the dying Bergotte. It contains the word ‘pan’, which might allude to the Greek god ‘Pan’, which is often associated with the devil in modern iconography. Moreover, Anatole France’s fallen angel character Nectaire shares many traits with Pan, including the playing of pipes. One might view that as another clue.

For an interpreted translation, Let us take the words ‘petit’ (small) and ‘de’ (‘of’ or ‘from’) at face value.

The phrase ‘mur jaune’ (yellow wall) forms a near homonym to ‘Magione’, a town in what is now Italy.

Now consider Bergotte next phrase ‘avec un auvent’ (which in English means “with an awning”). It is a near homonym to the “effect : a ‘no vent’” with ‘vent’ given the French pronunciation which means ‘wind’.

If we take this mix of English and French to its logical conclusion, the last words of Bergotte become: “Little devil from Magione effect a ‘no vent’, little devil from Magione.” One might understand ‘no vent’ to mean ‘no breathing’.

Notice that Bergotte then suggests his illness might be due to indigestion from undercooked potatoes, adding, ‘It’s nothing’. (“C’est une simple indigestion que m’ont donnée ces pommes de terre pas assez cuites, ce n’est rien.”).

Does the interpreted phrasing using “language games” suggest that Proust’s character Bergotte might have been poisoned?

Consider that the Magione Conspiracy was a 1502 plot to murder Cesare Borgia (see https://www.britannica.com/biography/Cesare-Borgia#ref238167 ).

“At this stage his leading commanders, fearing his power, turned against Cesare Borgia in the so-called Magione conspiracy.”) The reaction of Cesare Borgia to the betrayal is documented by Niccolo Machiavelli, as Borgia ordered the torture and murder of the conspirators after having feigned a reconciliation with Borgia in what is known as the Senigallia massacre. Two of the conspirators ordered murdered by Borgia were the brothers Paolo and Francesco Orsini of the very powerful Orsini family, said to be descended from Julius Caesar. Yet another member of the Orsini family, Cardinal Orsini, was arrested by Pope Alexander VI, who was the father of Cesare Borgia and was the source of Borgia’s power.”

Of Cardinal Giambattista Orsini (a.k.a. Giovanni Battista Orsini) the following is said ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giambattista_Orsini ):

“Giambattista, together with the head of the House of Orsini, the Duke of Bracciano, espoused the cause of the Florentines and the French. On July 12, 1502, he asked the pope for permission to visit the King of France in Milan; the pope did not agree, but Orsini nevertheless left the next day, attending a meeting of the Orsini family at Lake Trasimeno to conspire against the pope’s son, Cesare Borgia. Orsini was soon thereafter arrested on the pope’s orders and flung into the dungeons at Castel Sant’Angelo. He died there twelve days later, on February 22, 1503, probably poisoned on the orders of the pope or Cesare Borgia.”

The specific location at Lake Trasimeno where the Orsini family meeting took place is Magione, at the Castle of the Knights of Malta. Sources (e.g., https://www.deliciousitaly.com/umbria-itineraries/the-plot-of-castle-magione reports that, “In 1502 Cardinal Orsini rallied in the castle some of the major leaders and nobles of the time, including the Perugia Gian Paolo Baglioni, groped for an end to the expansionist ambitions of Cesare Borgia.”).

The story of the demise of Pope Alexander VI is also mysterious. Once source ( https://www.ranker.com/list/pope-alexander-vi-last-days/melissa-sartore ) explains it as follows:

“Pope Alexander VI, born Rodrigo Borgia, held a controversial status in life and in death. Even today, people still wonder, “How did Pope Alexander VI die, given the mysterious circumstances of the days before his death?” His final illness, rumors surrounding his demise, and the aftermath of his death highlight the excess and intrigue of the Borgia family. Pope Alexander VI’s death, while a source of intrigue and mystery, also gave the people of Rome much to celebrate, because hated the corrupt leader and his ties to the notorious Borgia clan. [..]

When Alexander VI fell ill in August 1503, at least he had some company. His illegitimate son, Cesare, got sick, too, along with the Cardinal who hosted the dinner party preceding their illnesses. Much speculation arose that someone poisoned his Holiness; there were several theories about why someone would do that, but two of the most popular were the fact that he had many enemies and the fact that he, the head of the church, also poisoned many people.

Alexander VI and his son, Cesare, dined with Cardinal Adrian Cornetto the night before they became ill. The Cardinal, the wealthiest member of the College of Cardinals, was rumored to be wanted dead by the Pope and his son. Alexander and Cesare allegedly spiked the wine with cantarella, a poison akin to arsenic and the go-to choice of the Borgias. The Cardinal was supposed to be the only one who drank from the poisoned bottle, after which he would experience abdominal discomfort, confusion, and weakness.

Whether or not Alexander and Cesare drank the poison remains unknown but they both sported fevers shortly after the meal. Cardinal Cornetto got sick, too, which fueled rumors of a poisoning gone wrong.

Trying to rid Alexander VI of his illness and re-balance his humours, the doctors let his blood. According to sources, the doctors marveled at how much blood flowed freely from the Pope’s body, up to 13 ounces.

By the fourth day of his illness, the Pope had already tried various medicines with little improvement. He continued to vomit and excrete green substances, growing weaker and weaker. On the fifth day, August 18, Alexander VI confessed, heard mass from his bed, took the Eucharist, and then lost consciousness.

By late evening, he received his last rites and died shortly thereafter. At the time of the Pope’s death, five Cardinals were present, along with bishops, grooms, and members of his papal curia.

Perhaps someone poisoned him out of retribution, or he accidentally imbibed poison he intended for someone else.

Alexander VI and his son, Cesare, dined with Cardinal Adrian Cornetto the night before they became ill. The Cardinal, the wealthiest member of the College of Cardinals, was rumored to be wanted dead by the Pope and his son.”

The source used by Melissa Sartore in the ranker.com story is “The History of the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem, Volume 2, (per https://books.google.com/books?id=3u9EAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA298&lpg=PA298&dq=cardinal+hadrian+of+cornetto&source=bl&ots=ddxufRiDde&sig=27f7ZLso9wJA9OmAQ5c28mTcIV4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik5ZzAq47VAhWIwYMKHezqBbwQ6AEIUTAI#v=onepage&q=cardinal%20hadrian%20of%20cornetto&f=false ).

Consider the source of this document. The Orsini family was closely linked to the Order of the Knights Hospitalier, and Giovanni Orsini “was the 39th Grand Master of the Order of the Knights Hospitalier from 1467 to 1476. Clearly, one group with a motive to poison Pope Alexander VI and Cesare Borgia were the remaining supporters of the Magione conspirators, which surely included the Orsini family and others among the Order of Knights Hospitalier.

Of Alexander VI, the book states:

“It seemed strange that in so holy a post God should so long suffer a monster that dishonoured it: but if his justice was slow, it was not the less severe on that account: and this pontiff perished by the ordinary instrument of his cruelties; for his last crime proved fatal to himself. [..]”

It is even suggested that ‘the butler’ may have played a role in the “mistake” made with the ‘poisoned bottle’.

My instinctive response is: “Pope Alexander VI didn’t kill himself” -accidentally or otherwise.

The use of the specific poison cantarella is documented in a 2018 article https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2397847318771126

“Toxicology in the Borgias period: The mystery of Cantarella poison, Karamanou et al., May 2018

[..] (I)n Renaissance Italy, poisoning was at its height. Prepared by physicians, alchemists, and pharmacists, poisons were employed by wealthy families under the impulse of lust and avarice for power. Murder in political circles became so frequent that nobody believed in the natural death of popes, cardinals, and royalty. Many of these poisons originated from the so-called “three kingdoms of nature” (animals, plants, and minerals) and included snake venom, cantharides, aconite, belladonna, strychnine, corrosive sublimate, arsenic, and others. The use of poison is also mentioned in several passages in the archives of the Venetian Council of Ten, one of the major governing bodies of the Republic of Venice from 1310 to 1797. It is of interest that the entry concerning the extermination of Sultan Mehmed II (1432–1481) contains the following: “9th July 1477. Decision—the offer made by Salamoncino and his brothers of procuring death to the Emperor of the Turks through the care of master Valcho (Mehmed’s physician) is accepted.” In the same way, the Council ordered in 1450 the poisoning of Count Francesco Sforza (1401–1466). They were planning to use a poison in the form of balls which when placed in the fire would produce toxic fumes provoking the instantaneous death of all those who were near the fireplace.

This period in history was marked by intrigue and poisoning attempts of the Borgia family, the most infamous family of Renaissance Italy. Their name became synonymous with cruelty and corruption and even if current historians are attempting to acquit them, the Borgias’ legend remains fascinating. Originating from the Borja town in Valencia, Spain, the Borgias became prominent in political and ecclesiastical cycles during the 15th and 16th centuries. Among their illustrious members were two Popes, Callixtus III (1378–1458) and Alexander VI (1431–1503), as well as, the illegitimate children of Alexander VI, Cesare Borgia (1475–1507) the major inspiration for Niccolò Machiavelli’s (1469–1527) famous work “the Prince” and the renowned political schemer Lucrezia Borgia (1480–1519). Due to the actions of these two children, the family name remains associated with greed, power, lust, and murder.

The Borgias specialized in disposing of cardinals, bishops, and nobles by using several kinds of poisons including arsenic, strychnine, cantharidin, and aconite incorporated in drinks, clothes, gloves, book pages, flowers, and drugs.7 It is said that the Borgias selected and laid down rare poisons in their cellars with as much thought as they gave to their vintage wines. The ideal poison should be reliable, effective, deceptive, and slow acting but strong enough to kill the victim (Figure 1). It has been suggested that all these properties were accumulated in a secret poison used by the Borgias; the cantarella, a variation of arsenic, the composition of which remains unknown. A primary reason for the popularity of arsenic as a poison was that it has no flavor or odor and when mixed into food or drink, it is tasteless. It seems that cantarella was a complex mixture containing arsenic combined with alkaloids of putrefaction emitted by organic substances in the later stages of decay. According to Nicolas Garelli (1670–1732), the chief physician of Emperor Charles VI (1685–1740), to obtain alkaloids of putrefaction, a high dose of arsenic was administered to a pig which was then suspended by the hind legs. The froth around the mouth of the dying animal was collected and kept in a bottle for use in the composition of poisons.

The Italian physician and historian Paolo Giovio (1483–1552) mentioned that cantarella was a kind of whitish powder with a pleasant taste which resembled sugar and that its efficacy was proved in several murders. Served in a goblet of wine at dinner, it had the reputation to function with time-clock precision. According to the desire of the murder, cantarella could kill in a day, a month, or a year. It was also believed that cantarella was so powerful that no antidote existed. It was said that victims presented with a variety of symptoms including confusion, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea which could mimic several diseases. Moreover, it seems that Pope Alexander VI and his son Cesare accidentally fall victims to cantarella poisoning. Alexander died but his son recovered after entering into the body of a dead horse; an ancient belief mentioned by the Italian physician Girolamo Mercuriale (1530–1606) sustaining that entering the body of a dead animal warded off the effects of the poison.”

Consider a group like the Orsini family of Black nobility. Is it possible that the ‘little devil of Magione’ in the Proust text refers to cantarella? If so, it raises the question, “Were the Magione conspirators- perhaps the Orsini family and its connections through the Knights Hospitallers- behind the poison which allegedly killed Pope Alexander VI and wounded Cesare Borgia?”

Even with an understandable and relatable motive (if the story is to be belived), they would certainly prefer to maintain distance from poisoning Pope Alexander VI. After all, it would raise the question, ‘Who else have they poisoned?’

Going a bit farther, if one considers that history is written by the victors, could it be that the reputation for malice of Alexander VI and Cesare Borgia was exaggerated by those who poisoned them? If so, it raises an interesting question: Was Machiavelli himself a disinformation agent, working on behalf of the Black nobility?

If one assumed that a careful reading of the passage leads to the deeper meaning, then it must be intended to suggest that Bergotte had been poisoned and murdered with a “little devil of Magione”, in other words: cantarella. The effect of the poison is ‘no vent’ or ‘no more breathing’. Thus, this short passage from A La Research du Temps Perdu offers a explanation for what group poisoned and killed Pope Alexander VI and seriously harmed Cesare Borgia, leading to his eventual demise.

Additionally, the passage suggests that if the character Bergotte symbolizes a real-world author, it is quite likely that the real-world author did not die a natural death, but rather was poisoned. The suggestion that Anatole France is Bergotte is intriguing, but France did not die until 1924, one year after the publication of The Prisoner. Is it possible that Bergotte represents John Ruskin? In 1900, at age 80, John Ruskin is said to have died from influenza, but could it be that he was poisoned instead?

John Ruskin’s views on vivisection, his Christian faith, and his prominence with Oxford University would have drawn considerable enmity from many of those who established the Rhodes Scholarships. Few among Milner’s Kindergarten would have authentically mourned his death.

One might surmise that John Ruskin would have been pleased to visit an exhibition of the newly discovered Vermeer paintings in the 1890s, given his well-documented love of fine art. If he did visit the exhibit, those involved in bringing about the Vermeer exhibition into being would have been keen to learn Ruskin’s reaction to it. In particular, anyone who brought into being counterfeit Vermeer painting would have been interested in finding out whether John Ruskin himself were taken in by the fraud- if in fact, such counterfeit paintings were produced.

Some of the traits of the character Bergotte align well with what is often said, whether true or untrue, by those who opposed John Ruskintoward the end of his life.

More careful study of the circumstances of the deaths of Pope Alexander VI and Professor John Ruskin should be conducted before drawing firm conclusions, lest this interpretation of Bergotte’s final words- in which literary critics hold varying opinions- be labeled a ‘conspiracy theory’.

Nonetheless, this example demonstrates that a careful reading of A La Research du Temps Perdu may be surprisingly worthwhile, as long as the book is approached with the proper understanding of how and why to read.

***

Chapter 13: The “newly found writings of Marcel Proust” – and their connections to Jeffrey Epstein

For decades, it was assumed that Proust did not pursue original works in the 17-year gap between the 1896 publication of P&J and the 1913 publication of “Search”. Then, in 1952, Bernard de Fallois is said to have made a remarkable discovery (per https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v41/n21/michael-wood/an-absolutely-different-life ). The events leading up to the amazing discovery of new Proust material in 1952 by Bernard de Fallois was described by Princeton Professor Emeritus, Michael Wood in a 2019 article:

“An Absolutely Different Life” by Michael Wood, London Review of Books, Vol. 41, No. 21, November 2019

Bernard de Fallois, a legendary French editor and publisher died in January 2018. He worked for a long time at Hachette, and set up his own company in 1987. At one point he was considering doing postgraduate work on Proust; he said in one of the lectures now published as Sept conferences sure Marcel Proust that he had been ‘tempted to conduct… a university exercise that one calls a thesis’, and the wording alone tells us a lot. But Proust was not the academic fashion then, and de Fallois had a hard time finding an adviser. He left the university world, became a schoolteacher and after that went into publishing, but he remained a distinguished Proustian. Invited by Andre Maurois to look at the Proust archive, at that point still held by Proust’s niece, de Fallois discovered Jean Santeuil, a long unfinished autobiographical novel, and brought out an edition in 1952. He also found a collection of essays that could be seen retrospectively as the birthplace of À La Recherche du Temps Perdu, and is now indispensable to many of us for all kinds of reasons. This was Contre Sainte-Beuve published in 1954.”

Remarkably, Professor Michael Wood’s article continues and it is revealed that another tranche of Proust’s works were uncovered in 2018 shortly after the death of Bernard de Fallois.

“On his death, de Fallois’s papers passed to the Bibliotechue nationale, and now we have three new books: (1) de Fallois’s lectures, (2) his essay on Proust’s first book, Plaisirs et Jours, and just last month, (3) a handful of early Proust stories, all but one never published before. [..]

The new pieces in The Mysterious Correspondent come from the (Bernard) de Fallois papers.”

The wealth and remarkable success of the would-be thesis writer Bernard de Fallois hinged on the discovery of Proust papers in 1952, as mentioned in this homage to him (per https://parisdiarybylaure.com/bernard-de-fallois-left-us-will-missed/ ):

“Bernard de Fallois has left us and he will be missed, 7 January 2018

Bernard de Fallois was one of the last great publishers of the 20th century in Paris. [..]At 91, Bernard de Fallois drove to the office every day in a very old Mercedes listed as ‘voiture de collection’, and was better informed than anyone in Saint Germain des Prés. At the beginning of his career, he became instantly famous for having discovered and published two manuscripts by Marcel Proust found in the writer’s niece’s attic: ‘Jean Santeuil’ and ‘Contre Sainte Beuve’.

He published in France brilliant British authors such as Rose Tremain, Rachel Johnson, Esther Freud, Antony Beevor, Munro Price and Kate Atkinson, even though he did not read English.

He was very anti-American and immensely disliked literary agents, but did well with Sebastian Junger, David Rockefeller, Harper Lee, Kavita Daswani and Marion Zimmer Bradley.”

In fact, Bernard de Fallois published David Rockefeller’s memoires in French in 2006. (per https://shs.cairn.info/revue-politique-americaine-2006-2-page-121g?lang=fr )

Then two years after Bernard de Fallois died, among his papers was found something truly remarkable. Can you imagine what it might be? You are correct if you have guessed… another 75 stories written by Marcel Proust!

Bernard Richards points out that among the ’75 stories’, a ‘piece of soggy toast’ appeared in place of the ‘madeleine’ in one of the most famous scenes of Proust’s work (see https://web.archive.org/web/20230510222216/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/what-to-read/review-proust-75-folios-unpublished-manuscripts/ ):

“Why Proust’s madeleine was nearly a piece of soggy toast: In these fascinating drafts of À la recherché…, By Bernard Richards

9 May 2023

Two years ago, Proustians were excited to learn of the publication, by Gallimard, of 75 sheets of material representing the early composition of À la recherche du temps perdu. The sheets had been in the possession of the publisher Bernard de Fallois, who had obtained them from Proust’s niece Suzy Mante-Proust (1903-1986): he had already published two extracts in a posthumous collection of Proust’s unpublished essays, Contre Sainte-Beuve (1954). When de Fallois died in 2018, the 75 sheets, thought to have since disappeared, were discovered again. Now that Gallimard collection, Les soixante-quinze feuillets et autres manuscrits inédits, which includes them alongside 17 other Proust manuscripts, has been translated into English by Sam Taylor. [..]

Does the famous madeleine arrive on the scene? Not yet – but a piece of stale bread dipped into tea, and later a piece of toast, summon up the mysterious essences of scenes lost in the past. Proust might have done better to stick to the toast, since madeleines in reality aren’t dunkable: they just turn into a soggy mess. Nonetheless, his treat has become a cultural meme…”

Recall that Madeleine Lemaire was a woman, 25 years older than Marcel Proust, who was specified by Anatole France in the last sentence of his preface of the 1896 novel, Plaisirs et Jours. One source notes that “their relationship was at times complicated” (see https://nonsolusblog.wordpress.com/posts-by-image/letters-from-two-painters-to-proust-1915-and-1918/ ).

But the true authority of the newly found stories was once again Princeton Professor Emeritus Michael Wood. In 2021, he authored a follow-up article that announced that even more Proust stories had been found. (per https://web.archive.org/web/20211006124239/https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v43/n19/michael-wood/proust-and-the-pet-goat ) “Proust and the Pet Goat”, Vol 43, No. 19 October 2021:

“‘Proust’s unpublished work does not exist,’ Bernard de Fallois wrote in 1954. Provocative words, since he was introducing a whole new volume of such material, and two years earlier had brought out Jean Santeuil, an unfinished novel Proust worked on between 1895 and 1899. De Fallois was trying to suggest, with a little too much bravado, that all Proust’s writing, early and late, published and unpublished, should be considered part of his great novel, A La Research du Temps Perdu. ‘The thousands of pages he dedicated to preparing for it,’ he argued, were sketches for the same grand project. [..]

Among the papers de Fallois consulted were ’75 large-format pages’ dating from 1908 which constituted the earliest stage of A La Research du Temps Perdu after Jean Santeuil. And here a curious story begins. Until 2018, no one had seen any of these 75 pages since de Fallois reproduced fragmenst of them. What had happened? [..] ‘(T)heir disappearance, the vain inquiries conducted by several generations of scholars since the beginning of the 1960s, all that imprinted on the ’75 pages’ a special mystery and aura’ (said one editor).

Then in January 2018 (Bernard) de Fallois died, and his papers too went to the Biliotheque nationale. They contained, among many other things, some stories Proust had chosen not to print- (The Mysterious Correspondence) – and the 75 pages. Had de Fallois forgotten he had them? Did they get lost among his own papers? Either way, he had kept them.”

Michael Wood then cites and analyzes several parts of the allegedly newly discovered work by Proust. There is one story which involves a goat.

“(One) episode concerns a curious scene in which the narrator’s younger brother-he has no brother in A la Research de Temps Perdu – has a huge tantrum because he can’t take his pet goat with him when he leaves his uncle’s country house for Paris.”

Professor Michael Wood then followed up his Marcel Proust article with a book, Marcel Proust, My Reading( https://global.oup.com/academic/product/marcel-proust-9780192845825?cc=us&lang=en& )

Michael Wood Marcel Proust, My Reading (published by Oxford University Press, 25 August 2023, 160 pages)

“The My Reading series offers personal models of what it is like to care about particular authors and works, and to show their effect upon a reader’s own thinking and development.

Readers who remain inclined to see these repeated discoveries of new Proust material as coincidental and unrelated to any sort of conspiracy may wish to consider that “The Jeffrey Epstein files”, Department of Justice released by the in January 2026, show that Professor Michael Wood met with Jeffrey Epstein in the fall of 2012 and discussed the work of Marcel Proust.

The progression of events was as follows:

On 7 September 2012, Dr. Richard Axel suggested to Jeffrey that Professor Michael Wood might be a good choice to give a talk at the Trinity School which Celina Dubin, then teenage daughter of Eva Dubin and billionaire Glenn Dubin, attended. Dr. Axel won the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

As a side note, a December 2019 New York Post story suggested that Jeffrey Epstein wished to marry Celina Dubin (see https://nypost.com/2019/12/18/jeffrey-epstein-wanted-to-marry-ex-girlfriends-teenage-daughter-who-called-him-uncle-jeff/ ).

In 2017, Celina Dubin was 17 years old, and the NY Post story remarked that Jeffrey Epstein had dated her mother, Eva. The email messages suggest that Celina Dubin attended Trinity School and Jeffrey Epstein, a close friend of the Dubins, had promised to assist in finding a guest speaker.

For those who might be unfamiliar with the Jeffrey Epstein files, the chronological order of messages goes from the bottom to the top for long back-and-forth conversations, typical of email responses. The message progression in its least redacted form is shown here: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2011/EFTA02701292.pdf

For clarity, since some characters are mismatched here (though they can be seen in other redacted files), the transcribed conversation was as follows:

From: Richard Axel (redacted)

Date: Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Subject: Re:

To: jeevacation@gmail.com <mailto:jeevacation@gmail.com>

Dear Jeff,

Although I would be pleased to oblige Eva’s daughter, I have vengeance for Trinity. My older son [redacted] was a student there for eight months in his 13th year and he was summarily dismissed mid-semester without recourse or adequate explanation. This coincided with the beginnings of serious psychological issues. I simply cannot oblige Trinity.

Michael Wood is broad, deep, and interesting. He can talk on a vast expanse of literature, but Nabokov would be fun.

Richard

Jeffrey Epstein forwarded the messages a couple of hours later, presumably to the Dubin family, as the email address listed as “Eva Dubin [redacted]”. Later on the same day (at 9:09 PM) “Eva Dubin” replied “Oi vei”.

Professor Richard Axel, in February 2026, stepped down from the Columbia Brain Institute over his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, though he is not accused of any wrongdoing and remains active in research at Columbia University. (https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5754364-richard-axel-nobel-prize-winner-columbia-university-epstein-files )

Interestingly, the account of “Eva Dubin” responded to the very same message which mentioned Professor Michael Wood with a curious comment and question:

“On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Eva Dubin [redacted] wrote: “I have the adderall and antibiotics. Can I drop it off tomorrow?”

Jeffrey Epstein promptly replied “yes”.

Those who use email are aware that one message may prompt a reply on an unrelated matter. Nonetheless, it is interesting that the combination of “Adderall and antibiotics” was in the strange messages which Jeffrey Epstein apparently sent to himself, as documented by, among others, the NY Post (see https://nypost.com/2026/01/30/us-news/epstein-claimed-bill-gates-caught-std-from-sex-with-russian-girls-in-latest-files-released-by-doj ).

“Jeffrey Epstein claimed in July 2013 that Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, one of the world’s richest men, asked one of his advisers to provide him with medicine to treat sexually transmitted diseases — the consequences of ‘sex with Russian girls.’

“During the past few weeks I have been caught up in a severe marital dispute between Melinda and Bill,” Epstein wrote in Nikolic’s voice on July 18, 2013.

“… In my role as his right hand I had been asked on mulitple occassion [sic] and in hindsight, wrongly acquiesced into participating in things that have ranged from the morally inappropriate, to the ethically unsound and had been repeatedly asked to do other things that get near and potentially over the line into the illegal,” Epstein continued.

“… From helping Bill to get drugs, in order to deal with consequences of sex with russian girls, to facilictating [sic] his illicit trysts, with married women, to being asked to provide adderall [for] bridge [tournaments] . I feel I owe it to my friends and futre [sic] colleagues to admit a moral failure , to ask forgiveness and to move on with my life.”

In a separate draft email to Gates, Epstein as Nikolic accused the billionaire of engineering a “cover up [sic] so that you can maintain the reputation that you have worked so hard to achieve” — and secretly slipping antibiotics to his then-wife Melinda French Gates.

“[You] implore me to please delete the emails regarding your std [sic], your request that I provide you antibiotics that you can surreptitiously give to Melinda, and the description of your penis,” the draft went on. “… I am concerned that if Melinda decides as you said to file for a public divorce, the damage done to the pledge program alone would result in billions of dollars of money no longer being used for social good as Im [sic] sure that some wives and husbands would feel free to retreat from their commitments.”

The messages had many apparently misspelled words, and so it is difficult to establish whether the intent of the message is what the New York Post writer claims or if it contains other deeper meanings. The point here is that “adderall” and “antibiotics” may imply the sort of things which made Jeffrey Epstein so notorious.

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00942774.pdf

It should be clearly stated that Professor Michael Wood was not included in this message interchange. The point is raised only to indicate the actions and state of mind of Jeffrey Epstein at precisely the same time and with the same “Eva Dubin” account (in quotes because the address is redacted) he was learning about Professor Michael Wood.

Indeed the morning after that exchange, 8 September 2012, was quite active for Jeffrey Epstein. First was an exchange between Jeffrey Epstein and billionaire Jean-Luc Brunel, in which Brunel first queried “Hi What are you doing today?” To which Epstein replied: “Come for lunch? 1?” and Brunel responded ‘Ok’. (see https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00657173.pdf ).

Epstein also sent a message to “Eva Dubin” at 11:33 AM ( https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00942794.pdf ):

“come around 130 todd meister wil be here”

Todd Meister is the CEO of the Meister Company who was briefly married to Nicky Hilton (Nicholai Olivia Rothschild), now married to James Rothschild (per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicky_Hilton ).

For what it is worth, Jeffrey Epstein arranged for a “belly massage” that same day, 8 Sep 2012. ( https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00942793.pdf )

What is truly astounding is that, while all of these arrangements were being made, Jeffrey Epstein corresponded with author and critic Brian Boyd of New Zealand, asking to meet Professor Michael Wood ( per https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00942791.pdf ). (Note that the date in this particular message might be expressed as day/month/year, a convention in other parts of the world. The time for each message is merely what is listed in the files. )

“On 8/09/2012, at 8:56 AM, Jeffrey Epstein wrote:

I would like to invite michael wood to lunch with me and Richard Axel ( nobel winner in medicine )) do you know him?”

Brian Boyd replied and copied Michael Wood on the message on the (Sat, 08 Sep 2012 02:15:14):

“Hi Jeff,

Here’s Michael’s e-mail, I’ve suggested why he might enjoy meeting you, so over to you.

Best,

Brian”

Once the contact was established, arrangements were made for Michael Wood to meet with Jeffrey Epstein at the latter’s home. (per https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA02160100.pdf )

In chronological order, the messages making the arrangements flow as follows:

(1) On 9/10/12 2:25 PM, [redacted] wrote:

“Hello Michael. I understand from Jeffrey he would like to hopefully have you come for lunch at his home on Thursday Sept. 20th—might 1pm work for you? Also, do you have any allergies or dislikes I can pass along to the chef?

Jeffrey lives at 9 East 71st street between 5th and Madison.

Thank you

[redacted]

(2) On Sep 10, 2012, at 2:41 PM, Michael Wood wrote:

Dear [redacted]

That sounds great - no allergies etc. I look forward to lunch and talk.

All best

Michael

(3) On 9/10/12 2:44 PM, [redacted] wrote:

tremendous. I will circle back with you as the date approaches. Might you be able to give me your cell number?

(4) On Sep 10, 2012, at 2:49 PM, Michael Wood wrote:

Dear [redacted]

Sure. It’s [redacted]

All best,

Michael

(5) On Sep 11, 2012, at 1:45 PM, [redacted] wrote:

Michael, by any chance are you going to be in NY on Friday Sept. 21st? I don’t believe Sept. 20th will work for Jeffrey now...

Please let me know. Thanks [redacted]

(6) On Sep 11, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Michael Wood wrote:

Dear [redacted]

Thanks v much for your message. Friday 21 works just as well for me.

All best,

Michael

(7) On Sep 12, 2012, at 7:50 AM, wrote:

Morning Michael. Would dinner be a possibility on Friday 21st?

(8) On Sep 12, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Michael Wood wrote:

Dear [redacted]

Sure, I’m going to be in NY all day anyway.

All best,

(9) On 9/17/12 8:29 AM, wrote:

Good morning Michael. Could you come for dinner at 6:30 on Friday Sept 21st? Also, please let me know of any allergies or dislikes so I may pass on to Jeffrey’s chef.

Thank you, [redacted]

(10) On Sep 17, 2012, at 8:44 AM, Michael Wood wrote:

Dear [redacted]

Perfect. No allergies, and no dislikes that count.

All best,

Michael

(11) To: Michael Wood [redacted]

From: [redacted]

Sent: Mon 9/17/2012 1:10:36 PM

Subject: Re: Jeffrey Epstein

Super!

9 East 71st Street between 6th and Madison

House # [redacted]

*** (end block quote)

To be clear, there is nothing nefarious in these routine messages sent to and received by Professor Michael Wood.

On 12 September, Jeffrey Epstein was sent a message with the subject line “Michael Wood”, presumably by the person who arranged the meeting. The day’s schedule for 21 September 2012 included a breakfast with Tom Pritzker, lunch with Professor Steve Kosslyn (former Dean of Social Science at Harvard who in 2012 served as Director of Stanford’s Center for Advanced Behavioral Studies per https://stanfordreview.org/breaking-epstein-sought-to-establish-behavioral-engineering-institute-at-stanford/ ), and dinner with Professor Michael Wood.

What on earth might Jeffrey Epstein have discussed with Professor Michael Wood, age 76 in September 2012?

One clue is that the aforementioned Brian Boyd stated in February 2026 that Jeffrey Epstein wanted to pay him to write a book (per https://www.1news.co.nz/2026/02/02/epstein-offered-to-fund-kiwi-academic-to-write-book/ ):

“Distinguished Professor Emeritus Brian Boyd, former University of Auckland English professor and expert on novelist Vladimir Nabokov, said his brief interaction with Jeffery Epstein was limited to a single meeting and emails relating to a possible book project that never went ahead.

Speaking to Breakfast this morning, Boyd said he first met Epstein while visiting Harvard University for a workshop on literature and evolution. Boyd said Epstein, who was reportedly “obsessed” with Nabokov, invited him to brunch the following day.

“That was the only time I met him,” Boyd said.

“He then Skyped me and said he’d like to fund a book, the next book that I was working on.”

At the time, Boyd was working on a biography of philosopher Karl Popper, when Epstein asked what book Boyd most wanted to write after that. Boyd said he mentioned a long-planned literary analysis of Nabokov’s controversial novel Lolita.

“His ears pricked up,” Boyd said, adding he did not understand Epstein’s interest at the time. Lolita details the story of a middle-aged professor who forms an obsession with a 12-year-old girl. A brief email exchange between Epstein and Boyd discussing the book was included in the latest files released by the US Justice Department.

“You suggested a while back we should work out the details of the money transfer,” Boyd wrote in a 2012 email to Epstein.

“Can we go back over things, first? When you asked me how long I would need to write the book on Lolita that’s the top of my wishlist, I said a year,” Epstein responded.

“You asked me how much money would that take. Being naturally antigrabbity, I said $50k ... you promptly said that’s not enough and counter-proposed $75k.”

Boyd said the proposed book funding ultimately “came to nothing”, and that he was not worried about his name being released in the latest charge of emails. “There’s nothing to worry about. I didn’t do anything except respond with pleasure to the possibility of getting a year off teaching to write a book that I’ve been that I was really wanting to work on.” He described Epstein, who died while awaiting trial in 2019, as a “smooth psychopath and narcissist”.

It would thus be logical to anticipate that Jeffrey Epstein was also willing to ensure the funding of books by Professor Michael Wood.

In fact, on 28 September 2012, a message with the subject line “Reminder: need to hear back from Michael Wood” suggests that Epstein wanted Professor Wood to “send him the papers” (per https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA02158197.pdf ).

Then, on 30 September 2012, Michael Wood sent Jeffrey Epstein a 5-paragraph analysis of Marcel Proust final page of À La Recherche du Temps Perdu , said to be written the day before Proust died ( per https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01887184.pdf , emphasis added in bold ):

(In expanded form):

To: Jeffrey Epsteingeevacation©gmail.com]

From: Michael Wood

Sent: Sun 9/30/2012 2:10:10 PM

Subject: Re:

Proust’s last paqe.jpg [attachment]

Dear Jeffrey,

Here’s the Proust page.

You’ll see he `finishes’ the book 4 times, with the words ‘dans le Temps’, in time. After the third shot he thinks he’s really got it and writes ‘Fin’, The End, with a real flourish. The he crosses out ‘dans le Temps’, continues the sentence and writes ‘dans le Temps’ again – for the last time, since he died soon after this.

The full sentence reads, in a very literal translation:

So if strength was left to me long enough to accomplish my work, I should not fail first of all to describe men there, even if it made them monstrous creatures, as occupying a place so considerable alongside the so restricted one reserved for them in space, a place on the contrary extended beyond measure, since they simultaneously touch, like giants plunged into the years, periods they have lived through, so distant, between which so many days have intervened – in Time

What we see at the bottom of the page is:

place so considerable alongside the so restricted one reserved for them in space, a place on the contrary extended beyond measure, in Time.

Then he crosses out in Time’, and inserts:

since they simultaneously touch, like giants plunged into the years, periods they have lived through, so distant, between which so many days have intervened - in Time

Thanks again for dinner and talk - my idea of a really good time, although next time you should do more of the talking...

All best,

Michael”

Jeffrey Epstein replied to this message on 28 September 2012:

“great fun I looked at the proust translation, the violins need new strings.”

The attachment refers to Proust’s last page was shown earlier in this article and can be found in the aforementioned Homage à Marcel Proust, published in January 2023 (see once more https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015065524335&seq=20 ):

The lower portion (zoomed-with lines added) can be seen for comparison in greater detail here:

The green lines underscore the phrase “Dans le Temps”, which was crossed out three times within this section and then left intact. The red curved line is aligned with the “real flourish” as described by Professor Wood.

But observe: might one interpret the “real flourish” to be intended to convey that the phrase “dans le Temps” should follow “Fin”? This illustrates a potential difficulty of interpreting the intended meaning of the scribbled notes attributed to Marcel Proust when he was no longer alive and able to clarify.

If so, we might easily interpret the line as meaning that “dans le Temps” should be placed after the word “Fin”. If so, then instead of:

“since they simultaneously touch, like giants plunged into the years, periods they have lived through, so distant, between which so many days have intervened - in Time

Fin”

we have:

“since they simultaneously touch, like giants plunged into the years, periods they have lived through, so distant, between which so many days have intervened.

Finished… over Time”

In the latter interpretation “Finished… over Time” (or “Finished… in Time) might mean to convey that what Friedrich Nietzsche and Bernard Shaw would call “Great Men” [“men there, even if it made them monstrous creatures, as occupying a place so considerable alongside the so restricted one reserved for them in space, a place on the contrary extended beyond measure, since they simultaneously touch, like giants plunged into the years, periods they have lived through, so distant, between which so many days have intervened”] are so superior to other human beings that they span time itself.

In this context, it would make sense that the work attributed to Marcel Proust would never truly end. It would only end for the time being until these “Great Men” simultaneously touch. Naturally, it would only make sense that new manuscripts attributed to Marcel Proust would appear over and over again.

Might this interpretation of Proust’s final page also explain why men with the same name (or nearly so) appear, as in the cases of “William J. Burns”, “Bernard Pares/Bernard Paris”, and several others which, for sake of brevity, I will leave unmentioned? If so, one must not attribute the cause to ‘time travel’ or ‘aliens from outer space’. Rather, the seeming coincidence is due to the “monstrous creatures” – oops, I mean “Great Men” – who alongside the “literary cabal”, have basically controlled the many of the machinations of our world.

It so happens that Terramar, founded by now-imprisoned Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, included a quote attributed to Proust on the company overview (per https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01111030.pdf ): “The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes.” Regardless of the true source of these words, the statement is wise counsel.

It is helpful in this matter to know how Jeffrey Epstein got his start. According to Labour Heartlands, David Rockefeller, whose memoires were published by Bernard de Fallois, played the most prominent role (pre https://labourheartlands.com/from-rockefeller-to-starmer-mapping-the-trilateral-network-in-the-epstein-files/ ):

“From Rockefeller to Starmer: Mapping the Trilateral Network in the Epstein Files”, by Paul Knaggs, 1 Feb 2026

In 1949, George Orwell imagined a world divided into three perpetually warring superstates: Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. Each bloc controlled its population through surveillance, managed information, and the systematic erosion of independent thought. The Party’s slogan was clear: ‘War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.’

In 1973, David Rockefeller founded an organisation that divided the world into three regions: North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. Its membership would be drawn from those who control finance, media, academia, and (notably) ‘a few trade union chiefs.’ Its operating philosophy, published two years later, argued that Western societies suffered from ‘an excess of democracy’ and that the solution required “some measure of apathy and non-involvement on the part of some individuals and groups.”…

Jeffrey Epstein was a member of this organisation. So is Keir Starmer. So is Peter Mandelson.

To understand why this matters, we must first understand what the Trilateral Commission is, what it wants, and how it recruits those who serve its purposes…

How did Jeffrey Epstein, a college dropout from Brooklyn with no formal financial qualifications, become a member of one of the world’s most exclusive policy forums?

The conventional explanation is that he donated his way in. This is too convenient, and it does not survive scrutiny.

The Trilateral Commission is strictly invitation-only. According to its own documentation, membership is determined by “economic weight and political influence.” The US group receives only five to ten openings per year, selected from “a list of candidates many times larger than the number of openings.” Members include former prime ministers, central bank chiefs, Fortune 500 executives, and senior diplomats. Britannica describes them as “influential politicians; banking and business executives; media, civic, and intellectual leaders.”

Jeffrey Epstein was none of these things. He was a college dropout whose only documented billionaire client was Leslie Wexner. He had no verifiable business model justifying his wealth. The suggestion that he simply wrote a cheque and received membership insults the intelligence of anyone familiar with how elite institutions actually function.

Fortunately, we do not need to speculate. Epstein explained it himself.

In an interview with Steve Bannon, Epstein described precisely how he gained entry to the network. The account is worth quoting at length because it reveals not merely how one man was admitted, but how the entire recruitment system operates.

Epstein recounted being invited onto the board of Rockefeller University in the late 1980s: “There was a money manager who said Rockefeller needs someone with financial expertise because the university is growing… I met with Nancy Kissinger and a bunch of other people, and David Rockefeller and I got along very well.”

[..]

In Epstein’s telling, David Rockefeller began to explain “world politics” to him. And then came the invitation.

“He formed something called the Trilateral Commission,” Epstein told Bannon. “The Trilateral Commission is some spooky stuff. People said it was something the people that the Illuminati and there’s some mystery about it, people that ran the world…”

Epstein then recounted Rockefeller’s explanation of the Commission’s purpose: “David said most countries, the politicians get elected for four years or eight years, separate from the royal families in England or in the Middle East. Someone’s there for four years and then they’re not there anymore. The most important people to have stability and consistency would be businessmen. So he formed this trilateral commission of businessmen and politicians from three major continents.”

Here, in Epstein’s own words, is the Commission’s operating philosophy: elected politicians are temporary; businessmen provide continuity; therefore businessmen should coordinate policy across national boundaries.

Rockefeller then asked the young Epstein: “Would you like to be on the Trilateral Commission?”

Epstein was, by his own account, thirty to thirty-two years old. “I looked at the list of people and that was Bill Clinton, former president of the United States. Paul Volcker, every great leader in America, the Asians, the Japanese, and with a very long description of the history.”

When asked to provide a biography for the Commission’s records, Epstein wrote: “Jeffrey Epstein, comma, just a good kid.”

“Which I thought was funny,” he told Bannon. “Nobody else did.”

This account demolishes the “donation” narrative. Epstein did not buy his way in. He was personally recruited by David Rockefeller because he possessed skills the network required.

But Epstein was not unique. The Trilateral Commission’s membership, according to its own documentation, is drawn from “business, media, academia, public service, labor unions, and other nongovernmental organisations.” This is not a random collection of wealthy individuals. It is a systematic recruitment operation spanning every sector that shapes public opinion and policy. [..]

David Rockefeller, in Epstein’s telling, explained the Commission’s purpose clearly: elected politicians are temporary; businessmen provide stability. The subsequent fifty years have seen this philosophy implemented through globalisation, European integration, and the systematic transfer of decision-making to institutions insulated from popular accountability.

Epstein was one recruit among many. His particular skills proved useful until they became inconvenient. The network that welcomed him continues to operate.”

The video interview, including the portion wherein Jeffrey Epstein refers to “the Illuminati” as quoted above is at this link:

(at timestamp 3:40) as Epstein explains why David Rockefeller wanted him on the Trilateral Commission.

Chapter 14: The man who can make history: Charles L. Mee, Jr.

There is one man who might be able to confirm the findings laid out in this Way Out Substack article, and his name is Charles L. Mee, Jr. His Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_L._Mee ) says this:

“Charles Louis Mee Jr. (born September 15, 1938) is an American playwright, historian and author known for his collage-like style of playwriting, which makes use of radical reconstructions of found texts. He is also a Special Lecturer of theater at Columbia University.

Charles L. Mee was born in Evanston, Illinois, the son of Charles Louis Mee Sr. and his wife Sarah Elizabeth (Lowe) Mee. He grew up in Barrington, Illinois, after the family moved there from Evanston. Mee contracted polio at the age of fourteen. His memoir A Nearly Normal Life (1999) tells how that event informed the rest of his life.

After graduating from Harvard University in 1960, Mee moved to Greenwich Village and became a part of the Off-Off-Broadway scene. Between 1962 and 1964, his plays were presented at venues that included La MaMa E.T.C., Caffe Cino, Theatre Genesis, and the Ontological-Hysteric Theater. [..]

To support himself and his family, Mee turned from writing plays to writing books in 1965. Lorenzo De’Medici and the Renaissance, the first of his many nonfiction books, was published in 1969 by HarperCollins Juvenile Books. At the same time, he increasingly became caught up in anti-Vietnam War politics, campaigning for anti-war congressional candidates and writing anti-war polemics. He did not return to writing for the theater for 20 years.

In the 1970s, he became the co-founder and chairman of The National Committee on the Presidency, a grassroots organization which called for the impeachment of Richard Nixon. His political activism led to his writing of political histories for the general public.

His Meeting at Potsdam (1975), about the 1945 Potsdam Conference, was chosen as a main selection of the Literary Guild, and was adapted for both film and television by David Susskind. He wrote other books on summit diplomacy, international power sharing, and American history, including The End of Order: Versailles 1919 (1980); The Marshall Plan: The Launching of Pax Americana (1987), and The Genius of the People (1987), about the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Playing God: Seven Fateful Moments When Great Men Met to Change the World (1993) was Mee’s final published work of history…”

The book titled The End of Order: Versailles 1919 by Charles L. Mee, Jr. contains two pages of Charles Mee’s devoted to Marcel Proust. These pages summarized a story published many years earlier in which a diplomat named Harold Nicholson describes Proust asking irrelevant questions. For background on Nicolson, it is said that he composed “autobiografiction” (from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d5c1/eaaf1670f86dca9e5b9e6c1b23d4361e4ec9.pdf ):

“Harold Nicolson’s name is more often associated with the history of diplomacy than with the history of life-writing, though he happens to be one of the main biographers who participated in the development of the modernistic form we have come to call ‘New Biography.’ The term was coined by Virginia Woolf in 1927, when she published an article reviewing Nicolson book Some People (“The New Biography”). This particular practice, which developed principally in the 1920s and 1930s, breaks away from 19th-century biography, steeped in hagiography and hero-worship; often seeking to demystify and debunk the icons of the Victorian age. Another of its prominent features is its highly literary style, at times toying with fiction, and experimenting with hybrid forms such as ‘autobiografiction,’ a practice more specific to postmodern literature, though the term was coined as early as 1906 by the British writer Stephen Reynolds.”

An example specific to Marcel Proust is then given as follows:

March 2, 1919, Paris

Dine at the Ritz–a swell [Marcel] Proust is there. He is white, unshaven, grubby, slip-faced. He puts his fur coat on afterwards and sits hunched there in white kid-gloves. Two cups of black coffee he has, with chunks of sugar. Yet, in his talk, there is no affection. He asks me questions. Will I please tell him how the Committees work? I say, ‘Well, we generally meet at 10. There are secretaries behind…’ ‘Mais non, mais non, vous allez trop vite. Recommencez. Vous prenez la voiture de la délégation. Vous descendez au Quai d’Orsay. Vous montez l’escalier. Vous entrez dans la salle… Et alors? Précisez, mon cher, précisez.’ So I tell him everything. The sham cordiality of it all; the hand-shakes; the maps; the rustle of papers; the tea in the next room; the macaroons. He listens enthralled, interrupting from time to time–‘Mais précisez, mon cher monsieur, n’allez pas trop vite.’

In other words, the story from Nicolson, repeated by Mee, is that Proust cared only about irrelevant surroundings rather than the actual work of the Peace Conference itself. The word ‘autobiografiction’ tells the story. It is virtually certain that Nicolson never met with Proust at all, let alone recorded such a statement.

Another one of the books authored by Charles L. Mee, Jr. is The Ohio Gang, published by M. Evans & Co (see cover and some front matter at https://archive.org/details/ohiogangworldofw0000meec/mode/1up )

It is notable that Mee’s, The Ohio Gang, focused on the administration of Warren G. Harding, who was elected US President in 1920, serving in that capacity until he died while in office on 2 August 1923. Recall that one of his appointments was that of William J. Burns to lead the Bureau of Investigation as mentioned at the very top of this piece in August 1921.

Interestingly, the policies of President Harding compare closely to those of President Trump. In a piece otherwise devoted to the negative aspects of Harding’s administration, a 2018 op-ed from the LA Times outlines these similarities ( https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed//la-oe-schiller-harding-trump-20180802-story.html ):

“By Brad Schiller, Aug. 2, 2018

…In the election campaign of 1920, he (Warren Harding) championed three issues: tax cuts, immigration cutbacks and tariffs on trade. He also promised to roll back the progressive legislation of his predecessors.

Doesn’t that sound like a certain someone we know?

Harding had other similarities to Donald Trump. He persuaded Congress to pass tax cuts that helped bankroll the Roaring ’20s. [..]

As for immigration, Harding championed the Per Centum Act of 1921 that had been vetoed by his predecessor, Woodrow Wilson. That legislation had the effect of reducing the flow of immigrants to the U.S. from 800,000 in 1920 to only 300,000 in 1922.

On the global stage, Harding was a champion of ‘America First’ and opposed our entry into the League of Nations.

[..]

Harding died on Aug. 2, 1923. Tabloids at the time suggested that his wife, Florence, might have poisoned him in retribution for his philandering.”

Charles L. Mee Jr. was among many who painted Harding in an unflattering light. He focused on alleged corruption by Harding and his associates, many of who were from the state of Ohio. While the negative portrayal is not unusual, the degree to which Charles L. Mee maligned the character of Warren G. Harding, especially in his youth, is extreme.

To give a sense of the viciousness of Mee’s attacks against President Harding, Chapter VII of The Ohio Gang, which was published in 1981, is titled, “The Little N-----“.

It might be somewhat understandable if the story presented hardships of Warren Harding as a boy who was bullied, and then told of Harding’s ability to overcome difficulties in his youth to achieve greatness. But that is not Mee’s intention. Rather, it is clear from the context that the book’s intentino is to use the “N-word” to connote that Harding might be seen as a member of a ‘Gang’. Note in the caption of the picutre of Harding as a boy that Mee placed a comment about “prison stripes” in the in the very same chapter.

The significance, as it relates to this article is that William J. Burns served under Warren Harding.

It is necessary to take a short diversion to discuss the role of a man by the name of Gaston Means.

Gaston Means was described by in The Ohio Gang (at the opening of Mee’s Chapter XXXII) in the following terms: “According to Gaston Means, whose word is always suspect when it is not an outright lie, Mrs. Harding called him in one day.” Charles Mee then proceeds to recite, almost verbatim (with appropriate attribution), a story which had been published in The Strange Death of President Harding, a book published in the year 1930 as an as-told-to book wherein Gaston Means is said to be the source of information by the credited author, May Dixon Thacker. (It is available here: https://archive.org/details/strangedeathofpr0000gast_u1l8/page/n7/mode/2up )

This as-told-to book contains an enlightening summary, said to be Means, in its introduction:

“Then, suddenly, vividly, there passed before my mind in rapid tragic sequence—one by one—the ghostly procession of other persons who had known some of these secrets. There were in this procession: C. F. Cramer, Jess Smith, Lawyer Thurston, John T. King, C. F. Hateley, Warren G. Harding, _ Mrs. Florence Kling Harding, General Sawyer, and last— Thomas B. Felder,—all representing supposed suicides or sudden deaths. I alone remained—who knew!” (p. 15)

The Strange Death of President Harding goes on to describe the circumstances surrounding each death. Note that two who avoided dying unexpectedly are William J. Burns and Gaston Means himself.

For one example, Means claimed to be the ‘first on the scene’ at the alleged ‘suicide’ of President Harding’s close friend and associate, Jesse Smith (documented here p. 226):

“Again, I surveyed the room. As I have said, the physical evidences of suicide were entirely too manifest,—too obvious. It appeared to me a stage setting.

The body lay on the floor some four feet from the bed. It was crumpled up—face downward. A pistol was several inches from his extended hand and arm. Pistol? The pistol he had told me he had bought for Mr. Daugherty,—and which had remained in his suit case, because Mr. Daugherty had not yet taken it and he—Jess—had been afraid to touch it.

I turned the body over. I examined the wound in the temple. Had he died from this pistol wound? I did not think so! Why, a pistol shot in that hotel would have awakened everybody in it! I remembered all Jess had said so many times,—about the ‘little white powder’.

I tried to reconstruct and retrace his movements after he had left my home at six o’clock,—but I was all at sea and could do nothing in that direction.

I searched the body carefully. I removed all papers from the pockets,—but I found no papers of any importance in his pockets. I went further. And under all of his clothing next to his skin,—I found a sort of belt,—a harness suspended around his shoulders and hanging just under his arms. On this harness was securely strapped,—a legal size extension envelope,—packed full of papers.

This I removed, for I knew that it was what they had sent me to get.

I arranged everything again exactly as I had found it opened the doors and returned to the apartment upstairs.

I delivered the envelope to my superior officer and returned to my home as I had come.”

A contemporary article in the NY Times does not mention Gaston Means but does describe the alleged suicide of Jesse W. Smith, who Charles L. Mee, Jr. portrays as part of “The Ohio Gang”.

https://www.nytimes.com/1923/05/31/archives/daughertys-friend-suicide-in-his-room-jesse-w-smith-shoots-himself.html

The Strange Death of President Harding concludes with Gaston Means insinuating that Mrs. Harding poisoned her husband, President Harding.

An appendix in The Strange Death of President Harding presents both a letter of endorsement recommending Gaston Means purportedly signed by William J. Burns and Congressional testimony from William J. Burns confirming his recommendation.

“Department of Justice, Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D. C. March 10, 1922:

To: Hon. Roy A. Haynes, Prohibition Commissioner, Treasury Department, Washington, D. C.

My Dear Mr. Haynes:

I received a request from your office the other day asking me to let you know something about Gaston B. Means. I immediately called up your office when I returned to Washington, but was told you were in conference. I then told your secretary to tell you that Gaston B. Means was absolutely all right; honest, intelligent, straightforward, and would make a first class man for you. Of course, I do not want to relinquish the services of Mr. Means and if there is any specific case you have in mind that requires the aid of a resourceful courageous intelligent man, Mr. Means is the one you want.

Mr. Means has been suspended in our service by the Attorney General through a complaint of some kind which the Attorney General has not explained to me, but I know it cannot be anything serious, and only a question of giving Mr. Means an opportunity of being heard,

As you know, no man can do his duty without making enemies, and Mr. Means has made some very powerful enemies by the courageous manner in which he has gone after crooks who have robbed the Government, and therefore, I expect to have Mr. Means reinstated. In the meantime, I will be very glad indeed to have him go with your organization.

Very truly yours,

William J. Burns, Director

Incidentally, in 1933, three years after the publication of The Strange Death of President Harding, Gaston Means was charged with defrauding a woman who gave him money after he promised he would effect the return the kidnapped infant son of Charles Lindbergh (per http://newspapers.swco.ttu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/45de1704-60b9-46a8-9f36-62e4afd6eefd/content ). The infant was later found, murdered.

Returning to the subject of The End of Order: Versailles 1919 Charles L. Mee Jr. A most essential detail is included in the book jacket, which states:

“What happened when the three most powerful heads of state gathered to establish a new order is the subject of this important book to which Charles L. Mee, Jr. brings a technique that owes something to Marcel Proust – who is himself unforgettably invoked…”

As noted in his Wikipedia outline, Charles L. Mee Jr. contracted polio as a boy, and it was a focus of the autobiographical book, A Nearly Normal Life. In 1999, the memoir was summarized in the NY Times (see https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/99/04/04/bib/990404.rv103525.html ):

“In 1953, Charles Mee, a 14-year-old high school football player from Barrington, Ill., was stricken with spinal polio, a viral disease with no known cure. More than 50,000 cases were reported that year, mostly of young people who took sick during the summer months. A national panic ensued. Cities closed pools and beaches; families canceled vacations, boiled their dishes and avoided indoor crowds. Children were warned against jumping in puddles, drinking from water fountains and making new friends. The March of Dimes became the country’s favorite charity, spurring the vaccine research by Jonas Salk and Alfred Sabin that all but eradicated the spread of polio in the United States. In this elegant memoir, Mee contrasts his painful experiences as a polio survivor against the relentlessly optimistic backdrop of the 1950’s. Unable to walk without crutches, isolated from old friends, a disappointment to his father, Mee found solace in books and in sleep. His new friends came from the margins of society, where no one, he claims, is ever quite whole. Mee, a playwright and the author of 15 books, endured years of personal anguish, heavy drinking and drug abuse. It took a long time for his rage to dissipate, and longer still to understand that polio can’t be beaten, only accepted. ‘I am no longer interested in recovery or restitution,’ he writes, adding, ‘How else my life might have been is unknowable; and the truth is, I wouldn’t change it for any other.’”

Chicago station WTTW reported on the development of the polio vaccine that trials were underway (from: https://www.wttw.com/playlist/2020/03/30/polio-chicagoland )

“Scientists sought to develop a vaccine for the disease, most working with a live version of the virus. But the young Jonas Salk, a garment worker’s son who had studied the influenza virus and worked on commercial flu vaccines during the war with the respected Dr. Thomas Francis of the University of Michigan, went against conventional wisdom and devoted his attention to a killed virus vaccine.

“I guess I felt the unreasonableness of life in so many ways,” he later told the New Yorker about why he went into research. “Research was one way to get at reasonableness and logic.”

He conducted a small trial in 1952 near Pittsburgh with a group that he told the New Yorker “helped us look into the future.” Another limited trial followed in 1953, then, in 1954, the March of Dimes pushed for a large-scale field trial—the largest experiment of its kind in history. More than a million people took part, with 440,000 inoculated with Salk’s vaccine and the others with a placebo. Illinois’s DuPage County, outside Chicago, was involved, with 8,000 children given the vaccine at their schools, their teachers lauding them for being ‘polio pioneers.’”

This was the time during which both the Salk vaccine and live-virus vaccines were under testing and development. Consider what might have occurred if, in 1953, only one of the participants in the “limited trial” of polio vaccines, whether Dr. Salk’s dead-virus vaccine or of a live-virus vaccine, said to be the focus of most other scientists, had contracted the very disease which the vaccine was designed to prevent? Moreover, the infected persons would have been contagious, meaning that polio may have spread to many others throughout the community. Was infection due to the limited trials of polio vaccines in 1953 the primary cause of the outbreaks of polio in that same year? By any chance, was Charles L. Mee Jr. one of the (one-year earlier) ‘polio pioneers’ who took the polio vaccine in the limited trials of 1953? Could it be that the Harvard admission and his successful career is primarily due to a deal struck to ensure the silence of Charles L. Mee and of his family for the many decades which have followed?

Consider all of the historical titles of Charles Mee’s books. Furthermore, take note that as “radical reconstructions of found texts”, these stories had already been written. They simply need to be edited and arranged in a book format, and from there it was a matter of selling the books. Someone else might easily have served that purpose, and I suspect that it precisely what happened. As the books sold, Charles L. Mee collected whatever royalty had been arranged as compensation for his vaccine injury and his silence.

For example, I do not believe that Charles L. Mee Jr. selected the aforementioned chapter about the childhood of Warren G. Harding for inclusion in The Ohio Gang. Nor do I believe for one moment that he chose its title, “The Little N-----“ . Rather, I am virtually certain it was chosen by someone else, much like the remainder of books credited to Mee.

Even after his literary activities slowed down near the end of his career, Charles L. Mee Jr. was supported by patrons as demonstrated by Charles Mee’s Wikipedia entry with the unusual heading “Patronage”.

“Patronage

In 1998, Mee’s friend, former chairman of Morgan Stanley and philanthropist Richard B. Fisher and his wife, Jeanne Donovan Fisher, offered to provide Mee with enough money to support himself. The rare arrangement imposed no stipulations or conditions upon Mee or his writing nor did it specify how long the relationship would last. Although Richard B. Fisher died in 2004, Jeanne Donovan Fisher continues to support Mee and his work. The Fishers patronage has been hailed as one “without parallel or precedent in American theatrical philanthropy.”

Sometime in 2013, concurrent with the launch of a redesigned website, the language regarding patronage changed to the past tense: “Charles Mee’s work has been made possible by the support of Richard B. Fisher and Jeanne Donovan Fisher.”

It is, even now, still possible to directly support the project at https://charlesmee.org/support-the-project.shtml. Charles L. Mee Jr. was born 13 September 1938, which would make him 87 years old as of this writing, and recent stories about him make it seem as though he remains active.

With regard to Charles L. Mee, Jr., take the time to combine(1) the timing of the onset of his polio, (2) the admission into Harvard shortly thereafter, (3) the historical titles with which he is credited, (4) a later patronage “without parallel or precedent in American theatrical philanthropy, and (5) the direct comparisons to Marcel Proust.

The circumstantial evidence of a vaccine-injury and cover-up is overwhelming. Yet Charles L. Mee himself holds the key. If I am right, and if Charles L. Mee Jr. is willing and able to tell the truth about what brought about these many happenings in his life, he would be regarded as one of the most significant historical figures of the past six centuries. Such a confirmation by Charles L. Mee Jr., which in some sense might also be called a confession, would bolster the possibility that Pope Alexander VI was murdered via cantarella poisoning in the year 1503, to name only one of many examples in this article.

I believe most people would view Charles L. Mee in a favorable light if he were to offer such a confession. His experience as a child, victimized by forces that are far too overwhelming for a 14-year-old to comprehend, would draw a great deal of sympathy. The decisions made by his family in 1953 would have been very difficult, with heartbreaking compromises no matter what course was taken.

And so one of the main purposes of this Way Out substack article is to ask Charles L. Mee Jr. to set the record straight.

***

Chapter 15 “The (many) Emperors’ New Clothes” (Conclusion)

In some ways, it would be appropriate to end the story here with this plea to Charles L. Mee Jr., but it is possible that he is either unwilling or unable to fulfill my aspirations for him. Thus, a contingency is necessary.

As mentioned in passing earlier, the ongoing deception resembles the aforementioned Hans Christian Anderson children’s short story The Emperor’s New Clothes (published in 1837). I felt a discussion of the story itself (full text at https://americanliterature.com/author/hans-christian-andersen/short-story/the-emperors-new-clothes ) might provide some helpful insight and lead to a conclusion to this piece. It is a familiar story to many, so I will summarize only the most essential parts, citing the text at the link.

An emperor, fond of apparel, was the subject of a sinister but well-thought-out deception.

“One day, two rogues, calling themselves weavers, made their appearance. They gave out that they knew how to weave stuffs of the most beautiful colors and elaborate patterns, the clothes manufactured from which should have the wonderful property of remaining invisible to everyone who was unfit for the office he held, or who was extraordinarily simple in character.”

One point which might escape a child listening to the story is that the “weavers” were not simply playing a joke on the emperor; instead, they were deceiving the emperor for profit.

“The two pretended weavers set up two looms, and affected to work very busily, though in reality they did nothing at all. They asked for the most delicate silk and the purest gold thread; put both into their own knapsacks; and then continued their pretended work at the empty looms until late at night.”

The clever premise of the story is that pride prevented the Emperor and all of people of his dominion from divulging that they did not see the Emperor’s new clothes, which in fact did not exist at all.

“So now the Emperor walked under his high canopy in the midst of the procession, through the streets of his capital; and all the people standing by, and those at the windows, cried out, ‘Oh! How beautiful are our Emperor’s new clothes! What a magnificent train there is to the mantle; and how gracefully the scarf hangs!’ in short, no one would allow that he could not see these much-admired clothes; because, in doing so, he would have declared himself either a simpleton or unfit for his office. Certainly, none of the Emperor’s various suits, had ever made so great an impression, as these invisible ones.

‘But the Emperor has nothing at all on!’ said a little child.

‘Listen to the voice of innocence!’ exclaimed his father; and what the child had said was whispered from one to another.

‘But he has nothing at all on!’ at last cried out all the people. The Emperor was vexed, for he knew that the people were right; but he thought the procession must go on now! And the lords of the bedchamber took greater pains than ever, to appear holding up a train, although, in reality, there was no train to hold.”

The great virtue- but also the main difficulty, from my standpoint- is the gap between the boy’s statement and the ‘But he has nothing on!’ cried out by the people. Clearly, there were many steps left out of the story.

For starters, these rogue “weavers” are very smooth operators and well-practiced in the art of deception. One must figure that this was not the first Emperor that they tricked, and with every swindled Emperor comes a fortune in silk and gold. I am also skeptical of the notion that “all the people would cry out alongside the young boy”. Indeed, I find it much more likely that these many Emperors would remain completely ignorant of being swindled by the ‘weavers”.

One might even imagine that these rogue “weavers” might become so incredibly wealthy that they throw an enormous party every year at an alpine mountain resort and invite all the swindled, but unaware, Emperors to join them.

An appropriate name for such a convention would be the “Assembly of Buck Naked Emperors”, but of course the “weavers” would avoid such accurate nomenclature. Instead, the “Council of Fancy Royalty” would have been much better from a marketing standpoint.

The “weavers” provide wine, caviar, musicians, and all sorts of other entertainment at the party. Meanwhile, hundreds of Emperors, all as naked as jaybirds, are enjoying themselves, hobnobbing with one another. “Fine weather we’re having here, my fellow Emperor, though I do find this mountain air to be a bit crisp,” spoken from time to time.

And the “weavers”, always on the prowl for an opportunity, would approach an Emperor.

Weaver 1 (whispering): “Sire, it grieves me dearly that I must tell you of a small tear in your most elegant garment- right here in the back, just out of your field of view.”

Weaver 2: “Oh, dear! I see it too! But with only take a few stitches of silk and gold, we could patch it right up for you most promptly! Oh Sire, you must allow us to mend it! Your Empire’s pride would be so wounded if the other Emperors happened to observe it too! In fact, we have some spare silk and gold in our knapsack we could use right this moment if only you give us your Royal promise to replenish it.”

Emperor: “Hmmm. I suppose the peasants won’t mind a small tax increase to maintain the pride of the Empire.”

Weaver #1: “Oh, Sire, your peasants are so fortunate to have such a wise and benevolent Emperor! And…. There! Just a few more stitches… and we’re done!”

Weaver #2: “Splendid work! Sire, I daresay that out of all the Royalty on the Council, your Excellency is by far the Fanciest! We’ll drop by your royal quarters later today to pick up the silk and gold to replace our stock we supplied. There’s no need for anyone even to know of this little episode to protect the pride of your Empire – it’s surely best to keep it quiet. Enjoy your wine, Sire”

Then the “weavers” repeat the process as one Buck Naked Emperor after another are swindled-so much so that the “weavers” profit by tenfold over the cost of throwing the party itself.

One can certainly imagine that these “weavers” have accumulated immense wealth before the Emperor in the Hans Christian Anderson story even comes onto the scene. They have had the time to work out a thoughtful system of highly paid “influencers” and “enforcers”.

One type of “influencer” is the obvious variety- the “weavers” position these “Blue Influencers” all about the parade route to extol loudly the beauty of the Emperor’s new clothes as he is processed along the path, persuading other to join them in the shouts of praise. But these “weavers” are very crafty, and they have also found the value of another type of influencer- the “Red Influencer”, likewise positioned at various points along the path.

The job of the “Red influencer” is to listen carefully to anyone in the crowd who might whisper that the Emperor is naked. Then the “Red influencer” signals the “Blue influencer” and both come close to the skeptic, who might properly be called an “Innocent Conspiracy Theorist” - the conspiracy theory being that the Emperor has nothing on at all, which like many conspiracy theories is precisely correct.

Then, the events progress like this:

Red Influencer (whispering to the Innocent Conspiracy Theorist): “As I live and breathe, the emperor is Buck Naked! Don’t you agree?”

Innocent Conspiracy Theorist (whispering back): “Yes! I thought I was the only one to notice, but it is obvious that he isn’t wearing anything at all. What is going on?”

Red Influencer: “Do you really think an Emperor who parades around the town naked like this should even be the Emperor?”

Innocent Conspiracy Theorist: “Well, you bring up a good point. It does make me question his judgment.”

Blue Influencer (to the Innocent Conspiracy Theorist, loudly): “What did you say?!? You question the judgment of the Emperor?”

Red Influencer: “He was just telling me that any Emperor who parades around the town naked like that shouldn’t even BE the Emperor!”

Blue Influencer (to the Innocent Conspiracy Theorist, loudly): “Not be the Emperor?!? Oh, so you’re an Insurrectionist, are you!?! ”

Blue Influencer (turning to Red Influencer, even louder): “And I’ve heard of your reputation! You’re one of those crazy Conspiracy Theorists! And the only reason you think the Emperor is naked is because you are a complete idiot! I bet you can’t even count!”

(By this time a crowd of bystanders has gather around the three of them.)

Red Influencer: “I can so count! One, two, four”

(The bystanders gasp!)

Blue Influencer: “Aha!! Try again, you moron!”

Red Influencer: “Um. One, two, um… five”

Bystander: “Five is right out!”

Bystander child to mother: “Mother! That man forgot about three!”

Red Influencer (overhearing): “Well, there are a lot of numbers! Nobody can remember all of them!”

Blue Influencer (turning back to Innocent Conspiracy Theorist): “He’s just a blooming idiot, but what’s your story? Were you trying to convince him to join your insurrection?!?”

Innocent Conspiracy Theorist: “No! I mean, I’m not an insurrectionist. I just-“

Blue Influencer: “Well, do you see the Emperor’s new clothes or not?”

Innocent Conspiracy Theorist: “Well, I, uh, I uh, I guess… I suppose I can.”

Red Influencer (to Innocent Conspiracy Theorist): “You lied to me!”

Blue Influencer (to Innocent Conspiracy Theorist): “Oh, I see your game! You’re smart enough to see the clothes, and that means you’re clever enough to recruit this nitwit to join your insurrection against the Emperor!”

At that point, two “Enforcers” are signaled to join in.

Enforcer 1: “What seems to be the problem here?”

Red Influencer (to Enforcer 1): “That bad man tried to recruit me for his Insurrection against the Emperor!”

Innocent Conspiracy Theorist: “No! That not what-“

Blue Influencer: “This Insurrectionist should be taken to the Dungeon immediately!”

Enforcer #2: “No. the Dungeon is too good for Insurrectionists! We take them straight to the Lawyers’ Den!”

Bystanders gasp: “Dear God! The Lawyers will tear him to pieces!”

And the two Enforcers carry off the Innocent Conspiracy Theorist to be thrown into the Lawyers’ Den.

Blue Conspiracy Theorist: “How about the rest of you? What do YOU think about the Emperor’s new clothes?”

Bystanders: “Splendid! Gorgeous! We’ve never seen anything more beautiful! etc., etc.”

It is a good thing for the child in the Hans Christian Anderson story had his wise father nearby. Other observant but overly expressive children without a parent nearby were surely tricked by the Enforcers into coming along with them and taken to some island or ranch where who knows what the devil happened to them.

And I suspect that exclamation of “Listen to the voice of innocence” exclamation by the father was actually a nervous plea to ignore his young child who simply was not wise to the ways of the world. I expect the father hustled his child off the parade route as quickly as possible.

So the story is great fun, but it really does not help in answering the question of how to get the whole crowd not only to see the truth – that the Emperor is Buck Naked- but to be willing to express it openly as well.

After thinking it over, it seems reasonable to acknowledge that the “weavers” so to speak have figured out a pretty smart strategy that perhaps ought to be taken as a lesson by the Innocent Conspiracy Theorists. What is necessary is a “student uprising”- but not an uprising of violence, rather an uprising of veraciousness.

The “uprising of moral character” should take precisely the form laid out perfectly by Oxford’s John Ruskin in Sesame and Lilies in paragraphs 51 and 52:

“The question proposed to you, How and What to Read, rose out of a far deeper one, which is was my endeavor to make propose earnestly to yourselves, Why to Read. I want you to feel, with me, that whatever advantage we possess in the present day in the diffusion of education and of literature, can only be rightly used by any of us when we have apprehended clearly what education is to lead to, and literature to teach. I wish you to see that both well-directed moral training and well-chosen reading lead to the possession of a power over the ill-guided and illiterate, which is, according to the measure of it, in the truest sense, kingly; conferring indeed the purest kingship that can exist among men; too many other kingships (however distinguished by visible insignia or material power) being either spectral, or tyrannous; -spectral- that is to say, aspects and shadows only of royalty, hollow as death, and which only the “likeness of a kingly crown have on;” or else tyrannous – that is to say, substituting their own will for the law of justice and love by which all true kings rule.

There is, then, I repeat = and as I want to leave this idea with you, I begin with it, and shall end with it- only one pure kind of kingship; an inevitable and eternal kind, crowned or not; the kingship, namely, which consists in a stronger moral state, and a truer thoughtful state, than that of others; enabling you, therefore, to guide, or to raise them. Observer that word “State;” we have got into a loose way of using it. It means literally the standing and stability of a thing; and you must have the full force of it in the derived word “statue” – “the immovable thing.” A king’s majesty or “state,” then and the right of his kingdom to be called a state, depends on the movelessness of both;- without tremor, without quiver of balance; established and enthroned upon a formulation of eternal law which nothing can alter, nor overthrow.”

I am hopeful that Professor Ruskin’s treatise will appeal to the students of Oxford University- including Rhodes Scholars and Marshall Scholars.

Speaking plainly, Marcel Proust wrote poorly, but I say this with compassion for him. (For the opposite, look at some of what his alleged admirers say about him, e.g.: https://web.archive.org/web/20200803112139/https://lettersofnote.com/2013/08/15/my-dnear-little-grandfather/ , which is surely disinformation about Marcel Proust.)

Talent is required to write a novel: to conceive of an engaging plot and then to draw the reader into it with language which flows smoothly.

Moreover, Marcel Proust was almost certainly vaccine-injured and lived under miserable circumstances. Even his most ardent supporters admit he used opium and morphine as he grew older. He is deserving of our sympathy. But let us employ rational thinking skills to conclude required to write the volume of material with which he is credited is inconsistent with his maladies. It simply does not add up.

It is not simply a matter of “Some people do like Proust while others do not like Proust”, though there are surely other books and authors for which those categories might be appropriate. The situation with Marcel Proust is different, and it is important to recognize that. For Proust, it would be like saying “Some people can see the Emperor’s new clothes while others cannot.”

Each student admitted to Oxford is fully capable of making his or her own assessment of what has transpired to lead to Proust’s acclaim as perhaps “Greatest Of All Time”. Take the time to read the work “Pleasures and Regrets” (or at least part of it) which it seems Marcel Proust actually did write. Then read the first 40 pages of “A La Research de Temps Perdu” (Swann’s Way, in English). There is no need to go any further (unless you wish to solve more language-game word puzzles). Have the confidence in your capability to make your own assessment using Ruskin’s aforementioned guidance that “there is essential goodness and essential badness”.

As for those who try to persuade you with illogical arguments to “persist” even after you have recognize A La Research de Temps Perdu for what it is, bear in mind the possibility that they might be compensated by Jeffrey Epstein’s replacement. Trust in your comprehension skills, and do not fear speaking the truth, despite what anyone else might say.

There is no such thing as blasphemy against the Higher Criticism.

Oxford University is the most appropriate setting for John Ruskin’s “moral uprising of students” to begin. But may this process of education and moral uprising through reading extend to students of all colleges and universities.

The entire world has been trapped in a web of deception for a very long time. This is the Way Out.

FIN… dans le temps

“Medical professionalism and ‘Being Worthy to Serve the Suffering’ are core tenets of Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society (AΩA). As a leading inter-disciplinary medical organization for 120 years we recognize exemplary physicians throughout their careers, beginning in medical school and residency. Over those years, AΩA has supported our members and profession through our mission and we sponsor and support many AΩA Programs and Awards for medical students, residents and fellows, faculty, teachers, and have published The Pharos, our journal for 85 years in both print and electronic versions along with other AΩA member Communications. More than 120,000 active members are supported through AΩA’s 135 Chapters in medical schools.”

The editorial itself, titled ‘Leading in health care: Beyond the COVID-19 pandemic’ begins with a well-known quote, repeated in more recent years by Saul Alinsky and Rahm Emmanuel:

“Winston Churchill once said, ‘Never let a good crisis go to waste.’ From the devastating COVID-19 pandemic, we have learned myriad lessons—good and bad. Lessons that we cannot let go to waste.

As history has taught us, leaders are often forged from unexpected crises. During the COVID-19 pandemic, physicians and physician leaders have been called on to inspire people, patients, teams, and each other to stand strong, and be resilient and resolute in a common devotion to serving the suffering.

[..]

These are medical professionals who answer the call to duty responsibly and with clarity and encouragement. Many, including Dr. Anthony Fauci (AΩA, Weill Cornell Medical College, 1965), Dr. Deborah Birks, Dr. Céline Gounder (AΩA, University of Washington School of Medicine, 2004) have been forthright professional colleagues speaking truth to power and leading with dignity, respect, knowledge, and a commitment to their fellow Americans.”

The editorial proceeds to promote a “universal health care” system, and ultimately concludes by repeating the quote of Churchill.

“Serving society as a public good: The toll of the pandemic in the U.S. has further exposed the need for universal health care to meet the needs of patients, physicians, health care providers, the public’s health, and to serve society as a public good… [..]

Now is the time to enact a U.S. health care system to provide universal health coverage as a social good. It must become a national priority to fulfill our public and social contracts. [..]

The time is now for much needed transformation of the U.S. health care system. The COVID-19 pandemic has made this more apparent than ever. We cannot, and must not, let this current crisis go to waste.”

Typically, one might regard a collegiate honor society in a particular field of study as a straightforward, benign entity. Students who attain good grades are often attracted to join such societies, perhaps to learn leadership skills if they become officers involved in coordinating meetings or charity events, or simply to denote a mark of distinction when seeking future employment. Generally, the professionals who lead academic honorary societies focus on maintaining records, collecting dues, and supporting the profession represented by the society and refrain from the realm of partisan political views.

However, the advocacy of certain political positions by Alpha Omega Alpha combined with its membership of powerful and influential individuals, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, suggest the group has other ambitions and therefore warrants our careful scrutiny.

The Pharos provides a historical overview of AΩA in its Winter 2022 issue (ref. https://www.alphaomegaalpha.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/p2-9_editorial_WIN22.pdf )

“120 years of being worthy to serve the suffering”, Richard L. Byyny, MD, FACP and Dee Martinez

“Dr. William Root, along with 13 of his classmates at the University of Illinois College of Medicine, decided, in 1902, that they needed to step up as leaders in their school and establish AΩA as an organization that would focus on what they saw as the cornerstones of the future of medicine—education, teaching, leadership, humanism, and service to others. To this day, those five tenets have guided AΩA to ensure that members demonstrate excellence in physicianship. For most members of AΩA, their medical professionalism and ethics are bound inextricably to their AΩA membership. AΩA members have a continuous thirst for life-long knowledge through which they dedicate their commitment not only to learning, but also to their moral purpose as physicians and to the profession of medicine…”

Under the heading of ‘Professionalism’, the article quotes a commencement address by former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr. Francis Collins.

“‘How will you keep fun in your life?’ asked Dr. Francis Collins (AΩA, University of North Carolina School of Medicine Chapel Hill, 1976). Yes, fun, seems to be a resonant chord, especially now. Life is full of enough sobering and tragic moments. Don’t forget to exercise your sense of humor for you will need it, and it will help you find joy as a physician and personally.”

A constitution of the society was published in 1922, and its founder, William Webster Root (cited as WW Root, hereafter), composed an opening essay and laid out its constitution. (ref: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=loc.ark:/13960/t3417wh86&seq=1 ).

It surprised me that an organization focused on academic achievement would be initiated by students, rather than faculty or administration. Among the reasons mentioned by WW Root for starting the organization was honesty, and I anticipated that cheating on tests might have been the primary motivating factor for initiating the society, as students are sometimes aware of its occurrence but reluctant to bring such matters to the attention of faculty due to peer pressure. Instead, WW Root appears to allude to thievery when indirectly quoting the “second man chosen to membership” as saying:

“(A)mong the virtues conspicuous by their absence was honesty and to the extent that articles of any value would be sure to remain where placed in the medical building only by nailing them securely”.

Only later do statements mention a lack of academic achievements and standards being loosely enforced. The word “cheating” does not appear in the document.

WW Root subsequently claims that he “conceived the idea, wrote the constitution, designed the badge, and has fathered the movement generally”.

On the same page, WW Root comments on the exclusive nature of the group:

“As intimated above, this society is an honorary fraternity and membership is based exclusively upon scholarship, moral qualifications being satisfactory. It may at first seem strange that an organization avowedly for a specific moral purpose should not welcome all to assist in so good a cause, but should be, on the contrary, so exclusive. It was felt, however, by the organizers that this very exclusiveness would help to carry out the original purpose and that hence the idea of an honorary fraternity should be rigidly adhered to that the order might have the added prestige the better to effect the moral purpose for which it was established.”

The constitution begins with:

“Section 1. This society shall be called The Alpha Omega Alpha Honorary Fraternity, the three Greek letters being the initials of the following words (first given in Greek and then translated to English as) ‘To be worthy to serve the suffering.’”

The specific language regarding the in the constitution of AΩA is described in Article III (Election to Membership) as follows:

“Third- and fourth-year students in a medical school where a chapter of this society is located [..] shall be eligible for election as active members, subject to the following conditions:

(a) Scholarship.

(b) Strength of character, individuality, and originality.

(c) Moral character in the broadest sense, including unselfishness, respect for one’s self, and for others, with high ideals.

Scholarship must always be considered the most important qualification for election, but no man, however brilliant in scholarship shall be eligible if he does not conform to the several requirements set forth in the last two subdivisions.”

The phrase “moral character in the broadest sense” should be borne in mind throughout the rest of this article.

“See Something, Say Something”

The Summer 2019 publication of The Pharos, provides a remarkably detailed story of WW Root’s life in the story “William Root’s granddaughters remind us of the past and inspire us for the future”, also authored by Richard L. Byyny, MD, FACP, and Laura Yañez-Gounod. ( ref: https://www.alphaomegaalpha.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/19_Summer_ByynyYanezGounod.pdf )

“As most know, AΩA was founded in 1902 by medical student William Root and colleagues, at the Chicago College of Physician and Surgeons. [..]

This was before Flexner who, in 1910, did his report on medical education when there was no accrediting body for medical schools. [..]

On June 21, the national AΩA office was honored to have three very special guests—Hilda Lounsbery English, Ann Lounsbery Owens, and Lois Lounsbery—three of William Root’s granddaughters. The sisters shared their stories and artifacts from Dr. William Root, his wife Anna, and the history of AΩA. The sisters—84-years-old, 81-years-old, and 77-years-old, respectively—brought with them newly-found treasures from Root’s early education years, the first days of AΩA, and documents and belongings long thought lost.

In March, Hilda, who lives just a short distance from the Roots’ home and medical office in Slaterville Springs, NY, was notified that some of her grandparents’ belongings had been found in the home of a cousin who had recently died. She was asked if she or her sisters might like to sort through the “dusty old stuff” to see if there might be any items they would like to have for posterity and memories.

Hilda found her grandfather’s medical bag, the leather exterior crumbling from age and containing cork-stopped vials, the contents of the vials long dried, leaving residue of medication from a bygone era; his lab coat with his name embroidered in red on the left breast; his Mason’s apron; the original shingle that hung on the family home from where he also practiced medicine and ran AΩA; and a slew of original documents. Hilda notified her sisters of the find, and together they began to develop a plan for the best place to house these priceless items.

Ann knew that AΩA still existed and thought she might reach out to see if the organization had any interest in the newly discovered items. Upon realizing that the national office was now located in Aurora, CO, Ann mentioned a distant cousin’s upcoming wedding in Ft. Collins, CO, and wondered if she and her sisters might be able to drop the items off at the office as they passed through the Denver area. Plans were made and confirmed and the national office staff anxiously awaited the upcoming meeting with the three sisters. The sisters spent more than three hours with the staff sharing stories of their grandparents, handing off historical relics, and reviewing historical documents.

William Webster Root and Anna Conant Bronson met as young adults in Ithaca, NY, in 1888. They came from very different backgrounds but attended the same church and were fellow students at Cornell University. William was born in 1867 in Niagara Falls, NY, to E. Volney Root, born in 1819 in Port Byron, Cayuga County, NY, and Amelia E. Root (also her maiden name), born in 1825 in Peru, Huron County, OH. Volney was a farmer and marble tombstone carver. In 1880 he moved his family to a new farm in Trumansburg, a town north of Ithaca, in Tompkins County. There, besides farming, he also worked in a hotel near Taughannock Falls.

Anna was born in 1865 in Boston. Her parents, Rev. Benjamin Franklin Bronson, born in 1821 in New Salem, NY, and Annie Hasseltine Chaplin, born in 1827 in Waterville, ME, were intellectuals and well educated. The Reverend was a well-known Baptist minister, and Annie was a writer and activist.”

The article proceeds to tell the story of the lives of WW Root and his wife Anna in great detail. An unusual love letter from WW Root to Anna Conant Bronson is even transcribed, in which the proposal of marriage is made in a curious fashion. The letter might be the subject of a future Way Out article, but presently I prefer to place focus on the career of WW Root a few years after his graduation from medical school.

The Pharos article continues:

“In June 1903, William resigned his position at the Chicago Manual Training School in order to complete his course in medicine at Rush Medical College, graduating in March 1904 with his medical degree. [..]

By 1908, the Roots moved to Detroit where William took a job working for Parke, Davis & Company as a research bacteriologist in charge of emergency hospitals in the area. Root published the article, ‘Serum Sickness and Sudden Death Following the Hypodermic Administration of Antitoxin,’ in 1910.

In 1910, the Root family moved to Philadelphia where William took a job at the H.K. Mulford Laboratories as a research scientist. He worked on vaccines for the company that was an early leader in the field.”

The citation, given as reference 2 in this article, is “Root, WW. Serum Sickness and Sudden Death Following Hypodermic Administration of Anti-Toxin, New York State J. Med. 20: 264(Aug); 1920.”

It turns out that the 4-page article is (at present) published in full on Google Books’ website (link at: https://books.google.com/books?id=4EYTAAAAYAAJ&q=264#v=onepage&q&f=false . Go to page 264.)

An analysis of this article “Serum Sickness and Sudden Death Following Hypodermic Administration of Anti-Toxin” follows herein.

“Revolutionary Generation”

For background on the subject of the article by WW Root note that:

“Prior to a vaccine for diphtheria, one of the first treatments for diphtheria was a horse-derived antitoxin developed in the 1890s. This antitoxin was made by injecting the diphtheria toxin into horses to produce an antibody response. Blood was then drawn from the horses and the antitoxin serum was separated and purified for use in humans. The H.K. Mulford Company of Philadelphia was the first U.S. company to develop diphtheria antitoxin for commercial use.” (ref: https://www.nvic.org/disease-vaccine/diphtheria/vaccine-history )

Thus, the diphtheria antitoxin serum described by was a predecessor to a portion of what today is often described with the moniker “DTaP vaccine”, which combines vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis. As described by WW Root, the serum was used both as a preventative and as a treatment for diphtheria at the time of his writing.

Given the importance of the author in establishing Alpha Omega Alpha, I am reproducing images of significant portions of the article as figures and providing intermittent commentary.

WW Root begins, as follows:

“This paper is based upon one publication by the author in 1910 in conjunction with Dr. E.C.L. Miller of Detroit.

After the administration of diphtheria antitoxin, the physician may notice a local or diffuse eruption, likely to be accompanied by itching and, possibly, associated with fever, pain in the joints, and other symptoms. Such an experience is not an uncommon one, for it is here and there met with in the practice of all physicians, who have occasion to use large quantities of serum. It is a noteworthy fact that, in the list of cases in which antidiphtheric serum has been injected, more are reported from immunizing doses than from curative doses, despite the fact that very much more serum and many more injections are, of course, given for treatment than in prophylaxis.

‘Perhaps the most important recent addition to our scientific knowledge,’ to quote form Park and Williams (ref. 2), ‘has been the development of our conception of the fact and meaning of protein hypersensitiveness.’ While the great mass of research in this direction is of very recent date, as early as 1839 Magendie noticed that wild rabbits showed no ill effect when injected intravenously for the first time (sensitizing dose), with egg albumin, a second injection (reacting dose) after a lapse of time was followed by serious and perhaps fatal disturbances. In 1894, the same results were noted by Flexner, and in 1902 by Richet, Portier, and Hericourt in experiments upon dogs. To Richet we are indebted for the term ‘anaphylaxis,’ that is, opposite to prophylaxis, or to take the meaning of the Greek word, ‘not guarding against,’ instead of as in prophylaxis, ‘guarding against.’ This work has been repeated by Theobald Smith-1905-by Rosenau and Anderson, and by many others, such researches having been carried on largely upon guinea pigs.”

It is noteworthy that WW Root cites Flexner. Although no citation is given, it is likely that WW Root refers to work of Dr. Simon Flexner similar to what he described at his commencement address in 1895 (accessible at https://archive.org/details/101490471.nlm.nih.gov/page/n4/mode/1up ).

Simon Flexner’s brother Abraham Flexner was the author of the Flexner Report. Many references can be easily found on the controversial report, which was commissioned by the Carnegie Foundation. A generous treatment of the Flexner Report written by Yale professor Thomas Duffy may be found at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3178858/ . Professor Duffy points out that John D. Rockefeller provided ‘his philanthropic resources to achieve the goals of the group.’

As it happens, John D. Rockefeller also founded the University of Chicago in 1890 which, along with the University of Illinois, established the first two medical schools to establish chapters of Alpha Omega Alpha in 1902. Rush Medical College, named for Dr. Benjamin Rush, began its affiliation with the University of Chicago in 1898, only 6 years prior to WW Root’s 1904 graduation from that very same medical school. (ref: https://archive.org/details/storyofrushmedic00iron/page/32/mode/1up )

Incidentally, Dr. Benjamin Rush was a fierce advocate of the now fully-discredited practice of “bloodletting” to which many attribute the death of President George Washington (per https://www.newyorkalmanack.com/2022/01/benjamin-rush-george-washington-and-manhattan-leeches/ ):

December 12th, 1799, was a freezing cold day in Virginia, but the weather conditions did not stop President George Washington riding out on horseback for the daily inspection of his Mount Vernon plantation. On return, he developed a fever and respiratory distress.

As there were no means to diagnose or treat a bacterial infection, doctors believed that bloodletting would improve a patient’s condition. In addition to the application of crude purgatives and emetics, over half of Washington’s blood was drained in just a few hours.Today, it is widely held that the President died from aggressive bloodletting which resulted in severely low blood pressure and shock.

[..]

The main American proponent of bloodletting was Benjamin Rush. Rush held a firm belief in the curative powers of depletion therapy. His almost messianic message led to many doctors adopting his bloodletting methods, including those who had treated President Washington during his final hours. His practice aroused controversy amongst physicians. Some referred to his routine as ‘murderous.’ He had a long-running feud with his college of physicians which forced him to resign. His application to the faculty of New York’s Columbia Medical School was rejected.

If we take into account that:

(1) WW Root first composed his paper citing Simon Flexner in the same year (1910) in which Abraham Flexner published the Rockefeller-supported Flexner Report under his name,

(2) the mission and goals of Alpha Omega Alpha and the Flexner Report were closely aligned, as described in several articles in The Pharos, and

(3) John D. Rockefeller established the school from which WW Root graduated, then

it would seem likely that WW Root’s role in establishing Alpha Omega Alpha played a role in his attainment of the position at H.K. Mulford Laboratories, the company which produced the injected serum .

Incidentally, a third Flexner brother, Bernard Flexner, corresponded frequently with Albert Einstein (https://findingaids.princeton.edu/catalog/MC056_c017 ) and was a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations (https://janeaddams.omeka.net/items/show/3321 ). The first honorary president of the Council on Foreign Relations, established in 1921 was Elihu Root, shown on right, below. ( https://cdn.cfr.org/sites/default/files/book_pdf/Continuing_The_Inquiry.pdf )

“Incident at 66.6 FM”

The WW Root article continues by describing some of the characteristics of ‘serum sickness’ and eventually provides the discussion of a previous study in which the authors reported the following:

“In institutions where children are injected with serum at regular intervals, the percentage of children showing symptoms of serum sickness increases with the number of times they have been injected (citing work of Lucas and Gay, of Children’s Hospital, Harvard University).”

WW Root then provides a table – the only table or figure in his article- and introduces it with the statement, “For sake of convenience their figures are placed in the following form:”

In the first (left-most) column, the table indicates the 1^st through 6^th injection, the second column provides the number of children receiving the enumerated injection, with numbers reduced, row-by-row, from 1,000 to 15. The third column shows the total number of children with a reaction, while the fourth column labeled “Percent Reacting” shows the percentage of children who experienced either general symptoms, local symptoms, or both (general-and-local) types of symptoms. Each presented percentage in column 4 is properly computed and represented in this column, albeit with more significant digits than is warranted for the lower 4 rows.

The fifth through eighth columns from the table of the WW Root article present the number of children with symptoms in the categorical sub-groups of “General symptoms” and “Local symptoms”. WW Root adds the clarifying statement, “The apparent discrepancy in the table between the total number and the sum of these manifesting general and local symptoms is accounted for by the fact that some children showed both.”

The interesting part about this section of the table is that, unlike the fourth column of “Per Cent Reacting” for the overall number of children, several of the values given in terms of “Per Cent” are incorrect. The figure below repeats the table with appended correct values adjacent and to the right of columns 6 and 8. Numbers shown in green are those which are correct in WW Root’s article while those shown in red are incorrect.

The most substantial error is the presented value of 10.0 percent in row 3, column 8 for the ratio of 13:103. (One might be tempted to assume that the computation was performed by accidentally swapping the ‘3’ and ‘0’ in the value 103 since 13 divided by 130 is in fact 0.10.) However, six other values of percentages are also incorrect by a single digit in the third decimal place – on two occasions too low and on four occasions too high. Of course, even these corrected values may have more significant digits than is appropriate.

For example, the lower right number shown by WW Root is 66.6%, but the percentage is based on the observation of local symptoms in 10 of 15 children who received the 6^th injection. Naturally, only two significant digits are warranted. Even so, the proper percentage, when expressed with three significant digits is 66.7% rather than 66.6%.

While the values themselves are not different enough to alter the conclusions, they are nonetheless incorrect. Naturally, I was curious to learn whether the misrepresentation of percentage stemmed from the citation or from WW Root himself, so I sought out and was able to find the Lucas and Gay reference online. (See: https://books.google.com/books?id=LHBAAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA254&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onpage&q&f=false turn to page 258). The section of the Lucas and Gay article which led to WW Root’s table are given below:

Those authors (Lucas and Gay) provide a calculation of only the total number of “percent reacting” which corresponds properly with column 4 of the table in WW Root article. Yet each of these percentages (based on the total number of children reacting) presented by Lucas and Gay for injections one through six is incorrect. The corrected percentage values are shown in red, to the right of each paragraph. Observe that each ‘Total’ percentage (column 4) in WW Root’s article has a correct value for percentage listed, as opposed to the incorrect values of Lucas and Gay. As for the number of children afflicted with ‘general’ and ‘local’ symptoms for each injection of serum, these values do indeed match those listed by WW Root in columns 5 and 7 of his table, suggesting that WW Root carefully worked out the values from the data laid out by Lucas and Gay.

However, Lucas and Gay do not provide a computation of the percentages for the children who experienced local symptoms or general symptoms-which are the percentages listed in columns 6 and 8 of WW Root’s article. One is left to conclude that WW Root, the sole author, was the source of those two columns of percentage values, most of them being incorrect.

Thus, we are confronted with a set of circumstances concerning WW Root’s Table 1 which is difficult to explain. WW Root has carefully calculated and corrected the faulty values given in the Lucas and Gay article related to ‘total’ percent reacting to the serum with symptoms; and yet he appears to have miscalculated the percentages which he himself computed for the sub-groups representing those with ‘general’ and ‘local’ symptoms.

Consider also that WW Root himself asserts that the same article had been written 10 years prior to its 1920 publication in the New York State Journal of Medicine. Despite that very long time frame, WW Root apparently did not check and correct the misrepresented values. Bear in mind that WW Root pressed for higher academic standards when establishing Alpha Omega Alpha. Does it make sense that WW Root would consistently fail to perform the long division necessary to compute percentages correctly when given a ten year time frame to complete this task?

Before answering this question, let us consider the remainder of the article authored by WW Root.

“Sudden Death (Interlude)”

One might expect WW Root to discuss of the difference between general and local symptoms. For example, which are more important when considering the long-term health of the individual experiencing serum sickness? But he does not provide any analysis of this sort. So why was it worthwhile for WW Root to determine percentages of general and local symptoms in the first place?

Rather, shortly after the table is presented, WW Root simply states that, “Serum sickness is not to be regarded as dangerous; the symptoms pass away in a few days as a usual thing and leave the patient none the worse for the attack.”

WW Root then reports of three means of alleviating serum sickness, and the only method he fully endorsed was to give the recipient an additional small injection of serum after the larger first dose.

The article then presents a formal page break before delving into the more serious matter of sudden death from the injection, the subject suggested by the title:

“A sudden death following the administration of serum is sometimes reported in the medical press. This occurs after the first injection, and there is no latent period.[..] It is stated that 1 in 20,000 primary injections of diphtheria antitoxin causes immediate anaphylactic shock [..] and that 1 in 50,000 of these cases terminates fatally. Such cases have been especially noted in asthmatics and especially where an attack of this disease is excited by the emanations from the horse, as also in the ‘Status Lymphaticus,’ as will appear presently. The symptomatology may include a rash with irritation, sensation of itching and burning, very acute edema of the skin and of the mucosa of the nose, moth, and throat, urgent dyspnea, and cyanosis with foaming at the mouth, and in fatal cases inability to breathe may cause convulsions and coma, and respiration stops before the heart ceases to beat.

In such a case, there are three possible explanations:

(1) Death was directly caused by the serum as such.

(2) Death was caused by the shock of operation (injection).

(3) Death was coincident.

In considering the first possibility, we know: …”

WW Root then lists ten factors which he deems relevant to assess each possibility.

Among the factors cited is:

“(h) That even in a thoroughly sensitized animal it is very difficult to kill in so short a time as five minutes.”

Consider for a moment the preposterous notion that death might occur coincidentally “within five minutes” of the injection of serum (the third listed “possible explanation”) for a case like this. That Dr. William Webster Root, founder of Alpha Omega Alpha, even offers this third “possible explanation” is telling. Could it be that WW Root was influenced by his employment by the company which produced and sold the serum?

Let’s consider WW Root’s second “possible explanation: the shock of the operation (injection)”, was the cause of death. To bolster this option, Root cites a Lancet article titled, “Death from Fear (in man following extraction of four teeth)” from October 1908.

Granted, some might reasonably fear an injection with a serum known to kill 1 in every 50,000 people. But would this fear truly lead to sudden death after the shot had been administered? Consider that people also fear dying of diphtheria. Using Dr. Root’s logic we should question whether those who die with diphtheria actually die of diphtheria or, rather, die of the fear of dying of diphtheria. In other words, accepting the theory that fear is the driving cause of death for those injected with the serum also leads to the possibility that the serum administered to a patient with diphtheria does not truly prevent death from the disease itself. Rather, it would suggest that the injection merely provides what some might call “a placebo effect”.

WW Root subsequently provides allegories of several sudden deaths unrelated to any injections, attributing the cause to “status lymphaticus”. This condition has long since been discredited as existing as a pathological entity (slide from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2084404/?pages=3 ).

Clearly, the likely reason among the three “possible explanations” offered by WW Root is his first-posed “Death was directly caused by the serum as such.” Yet, WW Root ends his article by repeating each of the three “possible explanations” and ultimately concludes by stating:

“As the facts in hand are not sufficient to exclude definitely any one of these three possibilities, they should all be carefully considered before reaching a conclusion.”

Thus, the article serves no purpose whatsoever in regard to its title subject. One could have surmised that these three possibilities exist a priori, without any knowledge of medicine whatsoever. The article by WW Root merely plants the seeds of doubt regarding that the most likely possibility- that deaths of those injected were brought about by some mechanism related to the serum. This obscuration of the cause of the sudden deaths surely led to the financial gain of his employer, H.K. Mulford Company.

Consider that the first half of WW Root’s own article cites the work of Lucas and Gay, which demonstrates that one prior specific experience predisposes a person to side effects of the injection of the serum. It just so happened that the experience in question was one or more prior injections of the same serum. Based on this opening section, one might have anticipated Dr. Root to use his analysis of the published work of Lucas and Gay as a basis for investigating alternate theories for why certain individuals might likewise be predisposed to die shortly after the injection. Was there something the victims who “died suddenly” had in common, aside from a brief mention of a possible association with asthma, given in passing without any type of quantification?

Instead, WW Root’s summary of the article’s first section dismissed the seriousness of the condition of serum sickness with the phrase, “Serum sickness is not to be regarded as dangerous; the symptoms pass away in a few days as a usual thing and leave the patient none the worse for the attack.” One is left to ponder why that first section was even included.

Moreover, why might WW Root have included the detailed data in Table 1 with incorrect percentages, which were not analyzed in the article?

Perhaps, the answer has to do with how we think about numbers.

“Truth Decay”

As former Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr. Francis Collins was interviewed in September 2021 and then again after he published a book, in September 2024 about the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines which he promoted. The two excerpts below are included here to establish the importance of mathematics, as the field relates to the establishment of truth.

https://churchleaders.com/news/405185-francis-collins-a-bit-frustrated-with-evangelicals-amid-covid-19-vaccine-push.html Interview of Francis Collins

“Francis Collins ‘A Bit’ Frustrated With Evangelicals Amid COVID-19 Vaccine Push” 13 Sep 2021 By Adelle M Banks

A day after President Joe Biden announced sweeping policy changes to continue to address the COVID-19 pandemic, one of his administration’s top health officials said he doesn’t expect widespread use of religious exemptions to get around them.

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, also acknowledged Friday (Sept. 10) that he is “a bit” frustrated with fellow evangelicals who have hesitated or refused to get the vaccine, even as the delta variant has led to an average of more than 1,000 U.S. deaths a day.

Q: There have been some reports of pastors with near-death experiences with COVID who have changed their mind about their resistance to the vaccine at that point. Is their example what it might take for some people to roll up their sleeves?

Collins: “I think every person’s got a somewhat different threshold for what it’s going to take. It’s often somebody they trust, who’s willing to talk with them, listen to the concerns — much of which are fed by conspiracies on social media that basically don’t have any truth to them but are troubling if you’ve heard them several times — and then basically get the confidence of that person that the evidence really is in favor of this. And that, for somebody who’s a believer, this is what you could call an answer to prayer. If we’ve all been praying to God to somehow deliver us from this terrible pandemic, and what happens is these vaccines get developed that are safe and effective, well, why wouldn’t you want to say, ‘Thank you, God’ and roll up your sleeve?”

[…]

For months, you and other people in the administration have talked about faith leaders of various perspectives as being “trusted partners” in the efforts to get people vaccinated against COVID-19. Has that approach shifted, or do you think those efforts haven’t worked as well as you had hoped?

Collins: Oh, I think they have worked in many individual circumstances. I do think faith leaders have been in a tough spot. And some of them, even though they’ve come around, personally, to the view that the vaccine is something they want for themselves and their families, they’ve been reluctant to raise it amongst their parishioners because of the fear this might be divisive. I’m hoping we’ve now reached the point where the evidence is so strong — where we see people dying around us — that those faith leaders will decide it’s worth taking the risk to get some pushback. To basically say, folks, let’s look at the truth of this. The truth will set you free.

Q: And what role in general, other than what you’ve said, do you see ahead for the involvement of faith leaders, with the new rules the president has announced?

Collins: Well, no doubt they will be asked whether this is a violation of personal freedom. And I hope pastors listening to that will listen carefully, but also remind us as Americans freedom is about rights but it’s also about responsibilities. I cherish my freedom as an American. I’m proud of my country. But I know I’m not free to go out and get drunk and get behind the wheel of an automobile. There are limits here, in terms of what that freedom implies and those responsibilities, for a pandemic, kind of kick in and they have for decades. Go back to when we had smallpox that was killing people across this country more than 100 years ago, or polio. When you have those circumstances where it’s not just about a person, it’s about the whole community, then we all have a shared responsibility. And I hope pastors will feel comfortable reminding people of that, and Christians especially ought to resonate with that, since we’re all known for our ability to reach out, our determination to take risks to help other people. Here’s a chance to do exactly that.”

Dr. Collins use of the “The truth will set you free” is from John 8:32 where Jesus says, “Then you will know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”

In 2024, the interview likewise turned to the topic of “truth” (From: https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/faithmediaandculture/2024/09/dr-francis-collins-talks-about-his-faith-journey-on-the-road-to-wisdom-from-mapping-the-human-genome-to-guiding-the-nation-through-a-deadly-pandemic.html ):

16 September 2024

“Q: In your book, you have kind of a diagram where you talk about the levels of truth.

Francis S. Collins: Yes.

Interviewer: At the center is Necessary Truth. Then, going out from that, there are Firmly Established Facts, Uncertainty and Opinion. So, what exactly is Necessary Truth?

Collins: Necessary Truths would be the things that absolutely have to be the way they are in any imaginable universe. A lot of this is just mathematics. 2+2 is equal to 4. It doesn’t matter whether you like that or not, it just is. The area of a circle is pi r-squared. That student on the math test that says it’s something else should not be allowed to say it’s just his opinion. These are things that just are that way. Most of it’s math.

Interviewer: So, talking about Covid, where does debate over the vaccine and its efficacy and safety fit into that circle?

Collins: Yeah. The next circle out from Necessary Truth is what I would call Established Facts – things which have been, by scientific or other established means of determining evidence, decided upon. This is true. It doesn’t matter whether you like it or not. It’s just true. The Earth goes around the Sun and not the other way around.

For Covid, you would want to say “Are the vaccines safe and effective?” Where does that fit? Given the trials that were done of more than 30,000 people for each of the mRNA vaccines, the Pfizer vaccine and the Moderna vaccine, that showed 95% efficacy and virtually no evidence of safety problems – that was the most rigorous kind of trial you could imagine, all those results being released in late November 2020 – you could put into the zone of Established Facts that those vaccines, at that time for the virus that was originally spreading, the one from Wuhan, were safe and effective.

Over time, the virus evolved, developed new tricks in its spiked protein – particularly that omicron version that was so different it was almost like starting over again. We did learn that, with very large numbers of people being vaccinated, there was a risk to young men of myocarditis – a risk of something like one in ten-thousand young men. Fortunately, all reversible. So, you could say “Okay, safe and effective? Let’s be a little careful about that.” That doesn’t mean there could not be rare side effects.

Q: Of course, some young men did die of it, right?

Collins: That’s not right. No young men have died of myocarditis. It’s all been reversible. There have been individuals with the other vaccines – the Johnson& Johnson vaccine and the AstraZeneca vaccine which had blood-clotting (problems). There were some deaths from those. That’s why those are not used.”

The importance of mathematics in establishment of truth (“Necessary Truth”, as described by Dr. Collins) is illustrated by 2 + 2 = 4. Rather than “Necessary”, I prefer the modifier “Absolute”. I view the fact that we are able to rely on the absolute truth of a mathematical statement like 2 + 2 = 4, no matter our cultural background or perspective, as a comfort.

Unfortunately, the fact that mathematics is a source of Absolute Truth leads many who wish to impose a certain viewpoint to use numbers and mathematical expressions as tool to convince others of a false premise.

The danger of the concept of “Established Facts” is evident in the portion of the phrase used by Dr. Collins which reads “or other established means of determining evidence, decided upon.”

For example, let’s consider the interviewer’s question “Of course, some young men did die of it, right?”

Recall that one of the rules for receiving the vaccine was that no one with Covid was permitted to receive a vaccine dose (

https://archive.cdc.gov/#/details?url=https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html ).

According to many media reports, this rule was enforced by hospitals, even for dying patients (e.g, https://www.fox26houston.com/news/its-too-late-doctor-says-her-patients-beg-for-vaccines-before-death).

Suppose that in 2022, an individual received an mRNA vaccine. In order to receive the vaccine, the individual was required to be free of Covid symptoms. Suppose that subsequently- a few days or weeks later- the person experiences fever, body-ache, difficulty breathing, and chest pain – all symptoms associated with Covid, but also with myocarditis. When he or she goes to the doctor, a Covid test would be administered. Two outcomes are possible – either the test is positive or negative.

If the test is positive, the question is, “Was the myocarditis caused by the vaccine or by a ‘breakthrough case’ of Covid?” If the ‘established means of determining evidence’ is to assign the cause to the most recent event, then it will always be assigned to Covid, rather than the mRNA vaccine since those with the infection are not allowed to obtain the vaccine.

This ‘established means of determining evidence’ would rule out the possibility that myocarditis was caused by the vaccine and that Covid occurred either coincidentally or was brought about by the vaccine itself reducing immunity for several days after its administration.

Now suppose the test turned out to be negative. In the most serious cases of myocarditis, the patient would have been kept in the hospital for a longer time period. The test for Covid test would have been repeated on a daily or near-daily basis. Once a positive Covid test was obtained, an ‘established means of determining evidence, decided upon’ would have attributed the cause of myocarditis to Covid (rather than to a vaccine injury) under the presumption that any prior negative tests were false. Bear in mind that those who “established the means, decided upon” made massive amounts of money from the vaccine.

Even absent a positive Covid test result, doctors might apply a version of the logic used by WW Root in his ‘possible explanation number 3’. One cannot rule out the possibility that an individual who experiences myocarditis only a few days after receiving a vaccine might have had a heretofore unknown underlying condition which merely happened to express symptoms a few days or weeks after receiving an mRNA vaccine.

If “other established means of determining evidence, decided upon” dictate that serious cases of myocarditis caused by the Covid vaccine are so incredibly rare that its likelihood is surpassed by random conditions, then its occurrence would not be attributed to the vaccine- thus reinforcing its status. In other words, it is a circular argument. Such a process of reliance on circular logic leading to “Established Facts” would lead to the now-discredited claim that, “No young men have died of myocarditis.”

“Revelation: 33 and 1/3 Revolutions”

In Biblical times, numbers were used for more than simply counting or for mathematical equations. Rather, numbers were often used to symbolically represent specific entities. (For more on this topic, consult “Looking for a Bright Light? Seeker, what’s your life like”

)

One of the most well-known number symbols of the Bible is 666 from the last book of the New Testament.

Revelation 13:8 “Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six.” (American Standard Bible)

Recall that the percentage given by WW Root in the last row and column of his table is incorrectly given as 66.6 instead of 66.7 – or to follow rules of significant digits precisely, simply 67.

Those who have read The Way Out substack article published in September 2025 (“Decode 3” at https://thewayout.substack.com/p/learn-to-decode-part-3-an-act-of ) will recall that the same type of “apparent mistake” was made the report describing the General Slocum disaster in New York City which killed approximately 1,000 German-American Christians. There, 2 crew members out of 30 perished, which leads to a percent calculation of “7 percent” when proper significant figure rules are followed, or “6.67 percent” when three significant digits are used. However, the report presented the value as “6.66 percent”.

Consider now the verse wherein the Book of Revelation presents the words of Jesus only a few chapters after the verse about the number 666, as follows:

Revelation 22:12-13 “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

Revelation 22:16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star.”

Could it be that, rather than employing his mathematical calculations as a representation of Absolute Truth, WW Root used numbers the table of his article in a symbolic fashion to repudiate Christian morals and ethics?

Recall that the constitution of Alpha Omega Alpha written by WW Root included the phrase “Moral character in the broadest sense.” At the time of WW Root’s establishment of Alpha Omega Alpha, the work by- or at least attributed to- Friedrich Nietzsche was beginning to gain support and interest among philosophical academic community. (See “Looking for a Bright Light…” at https://thewayout.substack.com/p/looking-for-a-bright-light-seeker for an explanation for why the phrase “attributed to” is likely the more accurate choice. For sake of brevity, the remainder of this article will simply refer to certain works with “by Nietzsche”).

The late Professor Michael Sugrue provides the following commentary in his lecture “Nietzsche’s Critique of Christianity: The Genealogy of Morals”. ( from:

Starting at 2:44:

“Now, Nietzsche wrote several books which criticized morality. In some respects, the tradition of Western ethics is his target. And perhaps the most intriguing of these books is called ‘Beyond Good and Evil’. Now, getting beyond good and evil is a rather unusual activity for philosopher, particularly one concerned with morals. But Nietzsche wants to take an extremely skeptical and naturalistic approach to moral theory and moral valuation. He wishes to offer a criticism of Christianity and the values it represents – and in addition to supplant that with a new code of morals. [..]”

Then at 5:00:

“In looking at Christianity, Nietzsche asks: What is it that Christian morals represent? Whose interest do they serve, and why are these interest disguised? What is it about the moral judgments of Christianity that needs to be disguised? What is it that is a lie in Christian morals? Remarkable question.

Nietzsche’s answer is that there are two kinds of morality, and Christianity only represents one particular perspective on judgments of Good and Evil. And this perspective is the perspective of the herd. Nietzsche contrasts two kinds of morals: (1) Herd Morals- morals that are characteristic of the weak, the feeble, the inferior, the enslaved- which is to say Christianity and (2) Master Morals- morals of warriors, the predatory human beings who make judgments on the basis of their strength rather than on their weakness.

Nietzsche wishes to supplant the herd morals (Slave Morals) characteristic of Christianity, characteristic of Western Culture for the past 2,000 years – with new set of morals which harken back to the Age of the Homeric Hero, which harken back to the Aristocratic Warrior Elite which is found all over the world, which creates values out of nothing and which glories in the fact that their judgments can be enforced in This World independent of any metaphysical construct.

Now, Nietzsche asks, ‘Who was it that created Christianity?’ Well, it is an outgrowth of Judaism, and Judaism is a priestly religion. Christianity is an extension of that. And Christianity in its earliest historical phases appealed to the Slave Class in Rome. In fact, Christianity is the revolt of the oppressed masses in Rome. And Nietzsche argues that Christianity and its myths were organized so as to articulate the perspective of the slaves, of the inferior, of the feeble. And it was a way of having revenge upon Masters, having revenge upon warriors, having revenge upon those who could oppress them, and turning the tables by offering a scale of values which was different from and independent of that of the Master class. Nietzsche says that the slaves have their revenge-the triumph of Christianity in the West amounts to the triumph of the slave, of the inferior, of the weak and impoverished. [..]”

Pause here to reflect that “moral character in the broadest sense” would include the “Master Morals” described by Nietzsche. Consider that Nietzsche’s desire to “harken back” to the pre-Christian morals of the pre-Socratic Greeks, described by Homer, might be interpreted as “going back to a time period before Jesus, and hence, returning from ‘Alpha and Omega’ back to ‘Alpha’.

Later in Dr. Sugrue’s lecture (starting at 24:55):

“If you read the ‘Genealogy of Morals’ and ‘Beyond Good and Evil’, you’ll find there are many anticipations of (Sigmund) Freud, especially on the question of conscience and the question of resentment. Nietzsche thinks that resentment, the hatred of being oppressed, is the source of the Slave Moralities, and that the priests take the resentment and formulate it in a mythological way so that they can control the herd and be opposed to any superiority among the would-be warriors who would break moral values.

Now, what makes the priestly type so dangerous is the fact that they can dominate culture and that they have chosen the ‘wrong’ path. They have chosen the Slave Moralities, and they have absolutized that. The consequence is that there seems to be no possibility of reintroducing that Master Morality without a complete and thoroughgoing critique of the culture, and that’s what Nietzsche thinks he is. That’s what it means for Nietzsche to be the Anti-Christ.

He’s not just the Anti-Christ in some mythological sense. He literally takes that as a mark of distinction. It shows just what a free-thinker he is. Nietzsche is willing to say that not only is he the anti-Christ, but he thinks that is the best development in culture since the time of Jesus. It’s about time we got back to a morality which would allow for the development of superior people.

Now, Nietzsche’s argument here is very disturbing in its consequences. It’s disturbing because it rocks the moral boat for us. But Nietzsche’s critique goes even further than this. He wants to investigate not just the question of pain and people’s desire to impose pain on others- and if not others, then on themselves. He wants to look at the arguments about suffering made by the priests.

Christianity, if you remember, holds the view that God is providential, that He supervises the entire world. The phrase is, ‘Not a sparrow falls, but God knows about it.’ Well, Nietzsche thinks that this was invented so that suffering could be justified, could be explained. And in some respects, there is a certain truth in that. Part of what Christianity does is to explain-or explain away- the fact of human suffering by saying that God doubtless has some plan. Although we don’t know what that plan is, it surely is there because the kind of God we’ve decided to construct is a good God, a loving God, the kind of God that would never do anything evil. Since He would never do anything evil, the suffering you get must have a meaning. And Nietzsche thinks that the worst thing that the priestly element ever did to human culture was to sell people on the idea that suffering has meaning.

Nietzsche says that the entire world is meaningless, that the world is moral chaos, that suffering has no meaning. And the idea that suffering has meaning just makes suffering even worse.

It’s not hard to see why. It was bad when weak, feeble people had to put up with the strong, had to put up with having things stolen from them, with being murdered and raped and tortured. That was bad because of simple physical pain – the reason that any natural calamity is bad. But the priestly idea of attaching a meaning to this suffering makes it all that much worse. Because if there is a God in heaven who is in fact supervising this entire procedure, the reason why suffering must follow us – why evil must befall us- lies in ourselves. We are somehow responsible for it. We brought it on ourselves.

What does this mean? This infinitely increases our suffering because not only are the weak and the feeble still being tortured and killed and raped and maimed. But in addition to that, it’s their fault.

What a horrible turn-around! What a dreadful addition to the suffering they already have! After you recover from a terrible encounter with warrior aristocrats, with those who are ‘beyond Good and Evil’, then you must live with the fact that you brought it on your selves. And guilt enters the world.

After the superior, after the strong, after the ruthless have finished with you- after they’ve caused their modicum of pain, you have to add to it. The ‘bite of conscience’ means that you go to impose pain on yourself.

This development is one of the worst turning points in Western culture, according to Nietzsche. And in that respect, Nietzsche believes that he is liberating us from the shackles of self-imposed misery. And for all his madness, there is a certain degree of coherence in this argument. And it is hard to know where he’s correct, how much of this we should accept, and how much of it is just speculation.”