Lewis Carroll, from Notes by an Oxford chiel (1874)
See also: John Tufail, The Jowett Controversy
In an early draft to the illustration The Crew on Deck in Lewis Carroll’s The Hunting of the Snark, the illustrator Henry Holiday gave the Bellman a different face than the one which the Bellman had in the final illustration. Henry Holiday didn’t discard the original face. He moved that round faced character to the illustration The Barrister’s Dream and then turned the Bellman in the illustration The Crew on Deck into a Darwin look-alike.
Just leaving some marks on Instragram.
#SnarkAllusion — ※ Left: The Banker after his encounter with the #Bandersnatch, depicted in an illustration (woodcut by #JosephSwain for block printing) by #HenryHoliday to the chapter "The Banker’s Fate" in #TheHuntingOfTheSnark" by #LewisCarroll (scanned from an original 1876 1st edition of the book) ※ Right: Slightly horizontally compressed rendering of "The Imagebreakers" (1566-1568) aka "Allegory of Iconoclasm" aka "The Iconoclasts", an #etching by #MarcusGheeraertsTheElder (#BritishMuseum, Dept. of Print and Drawings, 19184.108.40.206. (See also Edward Hodnett: Marcus Gheeraerts the Elder, Utrecht 1971, pp. 25-29.) Henry Holiday flipped the “nose” of Gheeraert’s “head” before using it as the Banker’s nose in his pictorial allusion to Gheeraerts’ etching. Probably not intended by Gheeraets but discovered by Holiday: Flipping the nose yields a different nose with a different shape. — I published an article about this in the “Knight Letter” 99 of the Lewis Carroll Society of North America: http://nose.snrk.de — #スナーク狩り #MarcusGheeraerts #ArtAnalysis #VictorianLiterature #VictorianIllustration #VictorianWoodcut #ReferentialArt #PictorialAllusion #LewisCarrollSociety #16thCenturyArt #16thCenturyPrint #16thCenturyEtching #19thCenturyArt #19thCenturyIllustration #UnusualArt #Bandersnatch #Reformation #Bildzitat #PictorialReference #SideBySide #Vergleich
A Snark article in the Knight Letter
(with lots of help from Chris Morgan and Mark Burstein)
Source: Knight Letter (ISSN 0193-886X), Fall 2017, Number 99
In his illustrations to Lewis Carroll's "The Hunting of the Snark" (1876), Henry Holiday might have referred to a detail in this panel of the Isenheim Altarpiece. pic.twitter.com/Q0AruMIpps
— Goetz Kluge (@Bonnetmaker) December 26, 2017
Retweeted by Musée Unterlinden (2017-12-27):
All men shall not be saved at the length. They also are worthy of condemnation, who endeavour at this time in restore the dangerous opinion that all men, by they never so ungodly, shall at length be saved, when they have suffered pains for their sins a certain time appointed by God’s justice.
Article 42 in Thomas Cranmer’s Forty-Two Articles (1552)
No one shall speak to the Man at the Helm, and the Man at the Helm shall speak to no one.
Rule 42, “completed” by the Bellman in Lewis Carroll’s The Hunting of the Snark (1876)
Pope Francis said eternal damnation is not a torture chamber but distance from God.
If something like eternal damnation (Article 42) would exist, then that also would be an eternal disconnect (Rule 42) between the Abrahamic god and those who adhere to that god.
What are those Forty-Two Articles?
The Forty-Two Articles were intended to summarise Anglican doctrine, as it now existed under the reign of Edward VI, who favoured a Protestant faith. Largely the work of Thomas Cranmer, they were to be short formularies that would demonstrate the faith revealed in Scripture and the existing Catholic creeds. Completed in 1552, they were issued by Royal Mandate on 19 June 1553. The articles were claimed to have received the authority of a Convocation, although this is doubtful. With the coronation of Mary I and the reunion of the Church of England with the Catholic Church, the Articles were never enforced. However, after Mary’s death, they became the basis of the Thirty-nine Articles. In 1563, Convocation met under Archbishop Parker to revise the articles. Convocation passed only 39 of the 42, and Elizabeth reduced the number to 38 by throwing out Article XXIX to avoid offending her subjects with Catholic leanings. In 1571, the Article XXIX, despite the opposition of Bishop Edmund Gheast, was inserted, to the effect that the wicked do not eat the Body of Christ. This was done following the queen’s excommunication by the Pope Pius V in 1570. That act destroyed any hope of reconciliation with Rome and it was no longer necessary to fear that Article XXIX would offend Catholic sensibilities. The Articles, increased to Thirty-nine, were ratified by the Queen, and the bishops and clergy were required to assent.
Source: Wikipedia, 2018-03-15
I assume, that Carroll’s “forty-two” serves as a reference to Thomas Cranmer’s Forty-Two Articles and the last article hierin about eternal damnation. As far as I understand, eternal damnation was a controversial issue in the era of the Oxford Movement, and the Rev. C. L. Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll) objected to the belief in eternal punishment. (The controversy seems not to have ended yet.)
Today, “42” mostly is known as an answer invented by Douglas Adams to an unknown question. Of course neither Lewis Carroll nor Douglas Adams would have provided us with spoilers which could help us to understand their “42”. Holding your readers responsible for their interpretations is much more fun to writers like Adams and Carroll. Therefore Adams told us that the “42” just popped up in his mind out of the air when he enjoyed the view of his garden. And Carroll told us that the last line “For the Snark was a Boojum, you see!” in The Hunting of the Snark popped up in his mind during a walk near Guilford (incidentally the birthplace of Ford Prefect, and then again not his real birthplace).
Lewis Carroll’s Snark and Douglas Adams’ Guide have more in common than just having fits instead of chapters. But among both authors, it probably was only the Reverend Dodgson to whom “42” had a special relevance in the history of the church, that vessel which had been snarked so many times.
When the crew of Lewis Carroll’s The Hunting of the Snark is making preparations for seeking that impossible creature, we read that “the Boots and the Broker were sharpening a spade”. This action is so outlandish that the editor and commentator Martin Gardner remarks ad locum: “Why in the world were they sharpening a spade?” (Gardner 2006: 44.)
Sharpening a spade is not outlandish. I saw farmers and gardeners doing that. Sharpening the spade before digging makes work easier. I think that Gardener simply asked what the Boots and the Broker wanted to do with a spade.
Quite probably the Boots and the Broker sharpened a spade because they were going to dig.