An American Story: Three Scrooges and a Good Samaritan

Once upon a time Rich Doubter stood up to a believer who claimed that he knew Jesus. Rich Doubter asked, “You say you know Jesus, but I don’t believe you. Why should I?”

Believer took a Bible from his pocket. He held up the Bible and said, “Here’s why?” Thinking to mock Believer, Rich Doubter asked, “Since you know Jesus, tell me what I must do to inherit eternal life.”

Believer answered, “Love your neighbor as yourself. Love them with all your heart and with all your soul. But love is not enough. With all your strength and with all your mind you must protect people from evil men who seek to harm them just as Jesus protected women from evil men who would harm them.”

“And if I do that I shall inherit eternal life?”

“What I know is that if you do nothing, you will have lived a worthless life unworthy of inheriting eternal life. You will die a rich man but spiritually poor. To others you will be nothing. The worth of your life will be less worth less than a piece of trash blown in the wind.”

“At least if I do nothing I will not be evil.”

“There are two kinds of evil—lesser and greater. The person who does evil commits the greater evil and becomes evil. The person who does nothing to prevent evil when he could do something commits the lesser evil. He may be less evil than the evildoer, but he is also less good as a person, perhaps not good at all. His evil is selfishness and may also be cowardliness. Such a man is worthless, unworthy of any kind of life much less eternal life. His only value is to himself; thus he is worthless to everyone else. He is worthless even to himself though he may think otherwise.”

“And Jesus told you this?”

“He showed me by living the life of a good man. Can you tell me who in the Bible betrayed goodness only to become a rich?”

“Judas?”

“You have answered correctly. Tell me, is that the kind of life you would want to live even if there is no eternal life?”

“Of course not.”

“Judas was unworthy of eternal life, but perhaps there is no such thing, just words. But tell me this. If there is no eternal life, then is Jesus nothing, just a man who once lived and died because there were no good men brave enough to save him?”

“No. He’s not nothing.”

“Why do you say that?”

“Because he helped others. He died because he was trying to help others to live spiritual lives.”

“I'm thinking Rich Doubter that you know something of the Bible. So can you tell me how does the poor man Jesus compare to the rich man Solomon? Solomon had riches and women beyond counting and Jesus was a poor man who loved women but only sought to protect them not to use them as Solomon did.”

“Compared to the good works of Jesus, Solomon’s wealth and all his wives and concubines add up to nothing truly good.”

“But the Bible says King Solomon was not only rich but wiser than any other king in the world.”

“Perhaps kings were not so wise when compared to real wisdom. Solomon threatened to cut a baby in half to reveal the real mother. That was a clever stunt but doesn’t make him wise. What would he have done if both mothers agreed? In those days, when kings gave their word they were bound by it as when Herod said to the girl Salome, ‘Ask me for anything you like and I will give it to you.’ Salome asked her mother Queen Herodias for advice, and she said, ‘Ask for the head of John the Baptist,’ whom she hated. Herod actually liked John the Baptist and didn’t want him killed, but he had to keep to his word. Emerson said, ‘Foolish consistencies are the hobgoblin of little minds,’ so maybe kings aren't all that wise. 

“I think that had Solomon been wealthy and wise he would have told the two women that one can keep the baby and the other will be given a free house and a stipend to live on so she won’t have to continue being a prostitute. I think the jealous prostitute would have gone for the house and stipend, and the nonsense of cutting the baby in half could have been avoided. And then he could have done the same for the baby’s real mother. That way the problem could have been solved with everyone being happy. But Solomon was too in love with his wealth to see that option. And he would still be evil for collecting women as sex toys, and though he was filthy rich we hear nothing about him helping the poor as Jesus did. He was like the rich men running the country today, though unlike them at least Solomon thought poor people were virtuous and not to be laughed at. But like our president he knew nothing about what it's like to be poor. If Solomon had been virtuous he would have helped the poor rather than praise them. But like the rich men running America he didn't care enough about the poor to help them.”

“For a rich man you are pretty wise yourself. So tell me which of parables of Jesus best reflects Jesus’s values.”

“It would have to be the parable of the Good Samaritan, which is about helping others in need.”

“And when asked who these others are, what does Jesus say?”

“Our neighbors, I believe.”

“You have answered correctly.”

“And then Jesus tells the story of the Good Samaritan. Yet, who was a Samaritan?”

“Yes, that was a long time ago, so perhaps we should update the story with people we do know.”

“Let’s do. That sounds interesting.”

“Then let’s begin. A Ukrainian family, a man and wife and three children, were going to the beautiful city Kyiv to shop for the week and enjoy the beauties of the city when they were attacked by Orc robbers from Russia. Today Orcs are everywhere in Ukraine. These men are malevolent brutes who prey upon innocent families, even destroying their homes and cities. They raped and killed the wife and kidnapped the children. They left the man alive to suffer as Job suffered, but stripped him of his clothes, beat him then went away with his children.”

“The poor man. He must have suffered greatly.”

“Of course he did, but the attack did not go unnoticed. It was observed by three men. The three men were Money Man, Gadget Man, and Soldier Boy. Money Man loved money above all else. Gadget Man loved his gadgets. And Soldier Boy loved being a big celebrity.”

“Why didn’t they help the family? Were they scared?”

“Together they could have defeated the brutish stupid Orc. Hearing the cries of the children and their mother, the men asked one another what they should do.” 

“And what did they say?”

“Well, Money Man was wearing very expensive clothes. His shoes alone were worth a thousand dollars. So he said, ‘I advise we do nothing because I may get my clothes soiled. I certainly don’t want to get any blood on my Casino Royale dress shirt. And the Orcs are very dangerous and may mess up my hair which is very delicate. Besides, I’ve been on the phone with the president of the Orcs and I think I can work a deal with him if we don’t do anything to anger him. So let’s just watch and do nothing for now.’”

“What about Gadget man?”

“Gadget man made missiles and satellites that could have been used against the attackers. But he too had been on the phone with the president of the Orcs and was hoping to sell him missiles and satellites. So he said, ‘I agree with Money Man. I say let’s do nothing and later make a deal with the president of the Orcs that will make us all even richer than we already are.’”

“And what about Soldier Boy?”

“Money Man and Gadget Man asked Soldier Boy if the three of them should save the family. Soldier Boy said, ‘I gotta be honest with you, I don't really care what happens to the family whether they live or die.’”

"'But you were a soldier,' said Gadget Man."

"'To tell he truth I was never into combat, and see no reason to get involved now.'"

“He just didn’t care. That’s a strange response from a soldier.”

“Well the Orcs are real soldiers who don’t care if families live or die. Maybe he wasn't a real soldier in heart and mind but just liked the uniform. It is a really cool uniform.”

“So what happened?”

“The Orcs raped and killed the wife, took the kids, one a daughter poor girl, and left the father in the road half dead.”

“Okay, so what happened next? Where is the Good Samaritan?”

“He's coming, but first let’s look at what the three men did. Money Man didn’t want to be bothered with the man, ‘I don’t want to touch him. He’s filthy, and he’s a nobody so why should I dirty my clothes and car getting him to a hospital?’

“‘Good point said Gadget Man. Besides if we help him we might spoil the deal with the president of the Orcs.’

“‘That’s right on the money,’ said Money Man. So then they asked Soldier Boy what he thought they should do.”

“‘He’s half dead so let him die is what I say. Besides, his wife is dead and dead people give me the willies and I get real squeamish at the sight of blood. So I say, let’s take off and go to a fancy restaurant where we can forget about all this shit.’ Gadget Man agreed saying that they should head for his yacht and take a holiday. Money Man said, ‘I’m up for two Big Macs, a couple Fillet-o-Fish sandwiches, a large fry and a diet Coke. Whaddya think?’ Soldier Boy said, ‘Whatever floats your boat, Money Man’ and Gadget Man nodded and smiled in agreement.”

“Was that the end of the story?”

“No. Then came along a grizzly old guy who looked like a beggar. He started going through the pockets of the dead man."

"'Who in the fuck is that,' asked Soldier Boy."

"'That's Steve Wannabe. I knew him ages ago.'" 

"'Who is he?'"

"'A political bone picker in the old day, a political scavenger. Boy he's really hit bottom having become scavenger of the dead.'"

"Then approached Old Man with his donkey. He started hitting Steve Wannabe with his cane. Wannabe tried to defend himself but Old Man was in a frenzy so Wannabe scampered away."

"Is Old Man the Good Samaritan?"

"So he is. He walked to where the injured man was lying in the road. When he saw him, he took pity on him. Though very old and could barely walk himself, Old Man went to him and bandaged the man’s wounds by tearing off the sleeves of his own shirt. He saw the dead woman and began to weep. ‘You poor, poor man. Your wife is dead. Where are your children?’

“‘The Orcs killed her and took the children.’

“‘Yes, they are evil monsters hardly human. I was once the president of a rich country but no longer. I'm not sure my people will help yours to fight the Orcs since three selfish men have taken control of my country and they will help no one because they worship only money and themselves and care nothing about other people, not even their own. They say they worship God, but they do so in front of a mirror. Jesus didn't worship God but believed God had called him to spend his life caring for sick, poor, and oppressed. His was the religion of altruism, not selfishness. And by doing so he became a spiritual man rather than a money grubber. The three men I speak of are known as the Three Scrooges but are often called the Three Stooges. Ha, ha, such selfish fools. But I will do what I can to help you.’”

“What Old Man said angered Money Man, Gadget Man, and Soldier Boy. ‘He mocks us,’ said Money Man.”

Rich Doubter said, “The three men deserved to be mocked. They remind me of movie The Wizard of Oz.”

“In what way?”

“You know the movie?”

“Of course. So tell me what you are thinking.”

“You know then the Scarecrow who wants a brain, and the Tin Man who wants a heart, and the Cowardly Lion who wants wants courage.”

“I do, and so what are you saying?”

“I think each of the three men lack all three. They are stupid, unfeeling cowards. And the Orcs must be like the monkeys that they do the work of the evil witch.”

“Yes. And I will tell you something you might not know about the movie. It was made in 1939 the same year World War Two began because Hitler ruled Germany.”

“So there have always been Orcs of one kind and another.”

“Always. That's why Good Samaritans are so important.”

“So tell me more about the Old Man, who is the Good Samaritan in your story.”

“Old Man put his coat on the injured man and struggled to get the man on his donkey. ‘You ride and I’ll walk’ said Old Man. Then Money Man said, ‘What a fool!’

“‘I couldn’t agree more,’ said Gadget Man.

“‘The old geezer can barely walk himself yet he lets the injury man ride his donkey while he has to walk. Old fool!’ said Soldier Boy.

“Then Old Man brought the injured man to a medical clinic and told them to take good care of him and that he would spend the night with him to reassure him that he was not alone. The next day Old Man took out his last two denarii and gave them to the doctor. ‘Look after him, doc,’ he said, ‘and when I return. And I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’ The three men had followed Old Man laughing to themselves all the way. When they heard what the Old Man said to the doctor, Gadget Man said, ‘What a fool giving his money help a stranger.’”

“‘I would have left him on the road to die. He’s nothing to me, and I’m a Christian,’ said Soldier Boy.”

“Soldier Boy wasn’t a very good Christian was he?” said Rich Doubter.

“He wasn’t a good man, Christian or not.”

“Then why is he a Christian.”

“For the same reason he is a soldier. To appear to be a better man than he really is.”

“But none of the men are heroes or good men.”

“No. They are just three stooges who think they are better than they really are.”

“Posers.”

“Yes.”

“And is that the end of the story?”

“It is, but can you tell me what the moral of the story is?”

“That Old Man is the hero of the story. He is a better man than the three stooges though he is old and not rich.”

“Why is he the better man?”

“Because like Jesus he help a person in need while the other just watched and did nothing. The Orcs are evildoers but the three men are selfish good-for-nothings.”

“So, you are a wise rich man. Do you still want eternal life?”

“Yes, if possible, but most of all I want to be a good man, a man like Jesus, not Judas.”

“So you are not a doubter. You know Jesus as well as I do.”

“I was prideful. I doubted you, but no longer. But I was uncertain about my own understanding of Jesus. And having talked with you, I now have a better understanding of what Jesus expects of us.”

 “So what are you going to do now, become poor and follow Jesus?”

“I will use my wealth to help people in need, and in that way I can still follow Jesus but do more good than I could as a poor man.”

“I wish you well my friend.”

“You as well, and thank you.”

Men and Women According to Winslow Homer's Paintings

  “His paintings are realistic, not idealistic or romanticized, yet they offer an idea of the ideal life for humanity based on reason and the world as it actually is primordially, not based on ideologies or religious myth populated with supernatural entities such as God, Christ, angels, and the devil and his minions. Philosophically, his idea of the good life not only for individuals but for humanity as a whole is similar to that of the philosopher Epicurus. But philosophical discussions of the good life can’t compare to Homer’s paintings that allow us to see the good life as it is. However, I do think viewers miss that in Homer’s paintings if they fail to consider what his paintings mean beyond what they describe.”

“You mean that his painting express a philosophy of life.”

“Yes, though from what I read, he refused to discuss his paintings.”

“I suppose I understand, but did he say why?”

“No, but for me each painting is an oracle that reveals something important and mysterious about reality. But it’s left up to the viewer to figure out what that revelation is.”

“And religion doesn’t play a role in his paintings?”

“I found no hint of religion in his paintings. There are school houses but no churches that I saw. Of course, true believers will interpret his paintings symbolically just as they do nature in order to find supporting references to their religious beliefs. Three of his paintings that I find relevant to the topic of religion are The Life Line, The Wreck of the Iron Crown, and Cast up by the sea.

The Life Line shows an unconscious female passenger being rescued from a stricken ship.

The masculine rescuer’s face is hidden by the woman’s red scarf, but we see the rough seaman’s hand of his arm that keeps the woman from falling off the small rescue seat attached to a rope by a pulley over a raging sea. The rescuer seems to be holding on for dear life with one of his boots in the water. The painting is significant because it too reveals the same primordial elements: femininity, masculinity, and the sea representing the destructive chaotic side of reality.”

“But what most viewers would see in the painting is a heroic man saving a damsel in distress.”

“That’s right, and there is nothing wrong with such an interpretation. It’s literal and matter of fact and even shows the important role of men as protectors of people in distress. Apparently Homer witness both incidents describe in the Undertow and The Life Line. As you said, that was also what the Civil War was about. But also keep in mind that the man is not identified as an individual, only his role as a rescuer.”

“But the woman is?”

“Yes. Seeing her as an individual makes the rescue more meaningful. She doesn’t just represent an idea. She’s a person.”

“But to you she represents an idea as well.”

“Very much so, which strangely the critics missed, or at least the masculine critics. Sadly they focused on the sensual characteristics of the woman, and it is true she is physically sensual—feminine soft rather than masculine muscular. But the critics focused her bust and thighs and even compared the two to a French painting called The Lovers, and I thought that was to be expected from critics saturated with the French sensibility and seemingly unlike Homer having had little experience of the real world that fascinated him.”

“But it is love in a way.”

“Exactly, but not sensual. It’s a higher love, a love of life represented by the woman. The love Jesus showed toward women. If there is one amazing aspect of Jesus’s thinking it is his ability to suspend masculine desire in his relationship to women.”

“Do you think Jesus was gay? Some people think so.”

“No. What Jesus does is what Plato recommends. He disallows the sensual desire to determine his thinking about women or people generally and perhaps even his emotions.”

“But love must have been present when he defended woman.”

“I think so. It's the love expressed in Homer’s painting The Life Line.”

“A higher form of love.”

“Yes, and given our discussion I must ask if Jesus’s altruism was motivated by this higher form of love or determined philosophically by the intellect.”

“I don’t know. What I can say is that the purest expression of altruism in the New Testament is Jesus’s parable of the Good Samaritan, which seems to be the ideal of moral behavior that Jesus set for himself and others.”

“What makes it so special?”

“We’ve discussed Kant’s philosophical approach to morality. Basically, he, like Plato, believed reason should guide our moral behavior.”

“Kant’s principle of autonomy.”

“Yes. Kant believed that logically there can be no morality without that principle, and so do I.”

“Because it demands that people’s autonomy be respected as long as they respect other people’s autonomy. That makes a lot of sense really. But it’s motivated by reason rather than altruistic love.”

“You got it. And that’s where Jesus takes morality a step further than Kant’s moral theory. Kant isn’t arguing for altruism. Actually, his principle of autonomy is a sufficient foundation for a social morally.”

“I see that. For one thing it prohibits all crimes involving aggression.”

“It does.”

“But for Jesus it wasn’t sufficient.”

“Apparently not.”

“What’s the difference?”

“The altruistic characters of the Bible—Ruth, Jesus, and the mythical Good Samaritan—seem motivated by love, not moral principle. For Kant, again like Plato, emotion is an unreliable foundation for knowledge thus a fallible guide for behavior.”

“Not everyone is loving.”

“Clearly not. So what Kant sets out to do is to find a moral principle that is universally reliable.”

“Which is what the principle of autonomy is, at least as far as I can tell, but bad people don’t care about morality one way or another.”

“That is the Achilles heel of morality.”

“And Homer’s painting The Life Line?”

“You tell me.”

“Clearly the rescuer is acting altruistically. And though I haven’t seen the painting, I would say his motivation wasn’t rational but love, the higher love Jesus represents”

“I agree. The rescuer loves the woman, and perhaps his motivation is greater because she is a woman, but he would risk his life in the same manner to rescue a man.”

“And that makes him a hero.”

“It does. And the critics who focused on the sensuality of the woman missed all that.”

“They weren’t philosophers.”

“They didn’t have to be. Ordinary people would see the rescuer’s heroism as an expression of a higher love without philosophy.”

“But you're a philosopher, so there is more to the painting than a heroic man risking his life to save an unconscious woman.”

“I speak not as a philosopher but as a retired merchant seaman who read philosophy books while at sea.”

“Whatever! You’re my philosopher.”

“Then I’ll do my best. You’re right. For me she is a lifeline to living meaningfully. Homer’s paintings are divided between the masculine and the feminine. Men are shown primarily at work, which is meaningful and necessary and at times inspiring. The grim side of masculinity is shown in his his Civil War paintings, as would be expected. Those paintings tend to be dreary. Rainy Day in Camp is one that shows soldiers gathered around a campfire.

In the background are tents, a row of tethered horses, and a blueish sky. The painting is colorful and wonderfully detailed yet the scene remains lifeless, ironically so given the number of men and animals. A forlorn looking mule expresses the tone and significance of the scene. War puts on hold the life celebrated by Homer—women and children and men performing useful tasks that contribute to life and its preservation rather than to its destruction. The scene is passive, but when the men and horses go into action it will be to kill other men. Homer’s paintings don’t celebrate war as a glorious enterprise and soldiers as idealized warriors. His view of war and its participants is expressed in a painting title Sharpshooter. The painting shows a sniper sitting on the branch of a tree. He looks though a telescopic scope for an enemy soldier to shoot. He is depicted doing this in a cool, calm businesslike fashion. The business of war is killing, thus an enterprise counter to all that Homer values as an artist. For Homer war is a tragedy, not something to celebrate. The sharpshooter illustrates the grim character of warfare, a business that engages in mass murder.”

“Is that how you felt when you were a soldier?”

“I didn’t do much thinking as a soldier. I recognized that the killing was necessary and that was about it. The killing and destruction were morally justified because the Allied Forces were fighting the aggressor nations that started the war and would conquer us all. We were doing what the rescuer in Life Line is doing. We were rescuing civilization from anti-life forces. Of course at the time I didn’t think in those terms. Nevertheless, we were participating in a necessary evil, not only the killing of evil men but also destroying cities and by doing so killing women, children, and other civilians. War is a grim enterprise. And important to our discussion of war, it’s necessary to recognize that war is no more an aberration of human  behavior than a sea storm is an aberration of the sea.”

“You mean it’s natural.”

“History seems to say so.”

“That’s unpleasant, something I would like to know more about, but I must ask if your role in the war was like both that of the sniper and that of the rescuer in the Life Line.”

“Good point. I would say yes. The men I fought with were good men engaged in an enterprise that was not immoral nor wanted by them. Their sacrifice was both good and heroic, but did require loathsome behavior that dragged the men into a primeval discord that reduced them to worse than beasts. To me the war dragged humanity back to the Stone Age. And there was no escape. One became a beast in order to fight beasts.”

“So what were the revelations of the two paintings?”

“The two paintings show two roles, perhaps the two sides of masculinity, one associated with preserving life, the other with destroying life, anti-life really.

“And the woman in the Life Line painting represents life.”

“To me she does. Her red scarf indicates that. She represents everything associated with domesticity, and I don’t mean just taking care of the home but family life in general, including the domesticity of creatures, which is their ultimate purpose in life—to produce life and to sustained and protect the life they produce.”

“But creatures also take life.”

“To kill is not their primordial motivation. It is necessary to accomplish their primordial task, their preservation as a species .”

“To provide for and protect their offspring and other members of the herd or pack.”

“I don’t think most creatures are aggressive by nature. Their aggression is motivated to achieve some benefit—such as food, females, and defense. Humans are rather unique in their valuing aggression for itself own sake, even going so far as creating cultural forms such as religion and art that celebrate aggression.”

“Men primarily.”

“Yes. We consider masculine aggression as normal. Not so for women. Certainly not for Homer.”

“And his paintings show that?”

“They show women working in fields. In the paintings of soldiers there are no homes, fields, children, or communities. War cuts men off from all that. Thus, war cuts men off from life as a primordial value. Their role becomes that of the raging sea in the Life Line painting. Even nature becomes irrelevant except as an obstacle or benefit to killing the enemy or avoiding being killed by him. War can change one’s perspective on life. Furthermore, the female represents beauty, whereas there is no beauty in the image of a sniper in a tree or of dead soldiers, which apparently Homer never painted.”

”And you would agree.”

“That's one of the lessons I learned from my experience in the war. There is no beauty in death and destruction. Perhaps the wise Mr. Sage knew that Homer’s paintings would be especially meaningful to me because of my war experience.”

“We were discussing religion and you mentioned three paintings having to do with the sea. We’ve discussed only one, but not in the context of religion but in terms of masculinity and femininity.”

“You do have a good memory. And those painting were...?”

“The Life Line, The Wreck of the Iron Crown, and Cast up by the sea. You said Homer makes no specific references to religion, but apparently you find a connection in those paintings. So how are they connected in terms of religion?”

“Okay, I think I’m back on track. We see in The Life Line a man rescuing a woman, who without his aid would drown. Being young, sensual, and pretty she represents one of the primordial glories of life. The painting is saying that without her there is no life, which is clearly depicted in the war paintings of men waiting to kill. The Wreck of the Iron Crown shows about a dozen male rescuers risking their lives to return to the ship to rescue a single sailor who had been left behind. And the painting Undertow shows two men rescuing two half-drowned women.

None of his paintings show better the ideal relationship between the two primordials of the human lifeworld, femininity and masculinity. The women are soft, sensual, life-giving and vulnerable thus represent life. The men are muscular and able to confront the force of the ocean to protect life. In their effort to save the two women they become heroic. Thus, I see the painting showing the value of women to be inherent, beyond just being living creatures, whereas the value of the men is linked to their being protectors.”

“You mean the value of men isn’t inherent?”

“It’s primordial but still a choice. Life itself has inherent value, but I’m speaking of primordial gender roles. Both men and women can become artists, scientists, and doctors, but the primordial role of men has been that of protectors and providers, sustainers of life, which requires action, whereas the primordial value of women is their association with life itself. Homer could have used men or even children instead of women being threatened by the ocean. But then the painting would have lacked its primordial significance in terms of masculinity and femininity. And the woman represents beauty. Clearly, Homer considered beauty as an absolute value. The task of men should be to preserve life and beauty, not to destroy them. But it is not inherent. They must choose how to use their masculinity, to be protectors or destroyers.”

“As they do in war.”

“Yes. In war they fight either as protectors or aggressors.”

“From what you say, Homer was a big fan of women.”

“Certainly his paintings say as much. He saw women in a way we don’t seem to anymore. Most are pretty and even beautiful, some sensual, but he never presented them as sex objects. In that regard, Perils of the Sea is the painting of his that best expresses his adoration of women.

It shows two worried women standing on a pier looking out at a stormy sea. A group of men stand below them. One is pointing, most likely to a fishing boat in distress. The men are rescuers and the women are waiting for a loved one. What can’t be seen is the boat that is at risk. To me, the women are symbolically two Marys.”

“Mother of Jesus and who else?”

“I was thinking only of the mother of Jesus but we could include Mary Magdalene. The women are concerned about the men on the boat, perhaps husband, boyfriend, brother or father. What struck me is that the women are dressed in blue, the color associated with the Mary.”

“And what does their wearing blue mean?”

“That femininity is sacred.”

“Then Christianity got it wrong.”

“By worshiping masculinity rather than femininity?”

“Yeah.”

“As a primordial, masculinity never proved itself worthy of adoration. And when it is, it’s always in a destructive sense.”

“But Jesus wasn’t destructive.”

“No, but those who worshiped him were.”

“Do you think Homer saw women in that way?”

“His paintings seem to say so.”

“And men?”

“They are praised, not adored. In Perils of the Sea the two women are not associated with sensuality but with the primordials of love, family, and life. They are also sacred because love, family, and life are what the men at sea risk their lives for. Nothing else.”

“That way of viewing of women is a lot different from how they are presented today in magazines, movies, and music videos today.”

“Very much so. His way of understanding women is similar to the way the ancient Greeks did. How ironic that Greek statues of naked women, goddesses but human women nonetheless, are not erotic.”

“I agree, though some men would see them in that way.”

“Simple minds, yes.”

“Why aren't those statues erotic?”

“I think, though I’m not certain, it was because they were not to be understood in the context of sex.”

“As women are today are.”

“A change that is rather recent, at least in America. Until then, Homer’s view of women was the norm in America. Yes, there were saloon gals to entertain the lonely men of the Wild West. They performed a necessary niche role on the frontier, the outskirts of civilization populated mostly by unmarried men. But being a saloon gal wasn’t the role of women celebrated by the country’s culture. And it may be the case that these temporary female companions were not looked down upon as sex objects by the men who appreciated their company. I say that because I don’t believe the country was as obsessed with sex as it is today. In fact, even rather recently Hollywood produced movies that continued to venerate women as sublime beings.”

 “Which movies?”

“Sam Wood’s Our Town and Elia Kazan’s On the Waterfront.”

“Who were the women?”

“In Our Town Emily Webb and Edie Doyle in On the Waterfront.

”Sorry but I don’t know those movies. I didn’t go to the movies growing up and my dad watched only westerns TV.”

“That’s understandable. The movies are old. But if your father is a fan of westerns you might have seen My Darling Clementine.”

“Oh yeah, more than once. And Clementine is the woman.”

“Yes, and Chihuahua, a hot-tempered but lovable saloon gal who isn’t presented as a sex object in the movie. She loved by Doc Holliday. And those depictions of American women are very similar to Homer’s. But by the time of On the Waterfront came out in 1954 that view of women had pretty much disappeared from American culture. A cultural paradigm shift occurred.”

“I understand that they were traditional icons of femininity. You see that in the many of the paintings of other artists such as Singer Sargent, George Caleb Bingham, Mary Stevenson Cassatt, and Elizabeth Nourse. But what was lost in the transition?”

“I think it comes down to the disenchantment of femininity. The women of the Greeks and of Homer are enchanting for two reasons. Beauty made them supernatural but not in the religious sense but because beauty is subjective thus transcends materiality. Second, they possessed the ability to bring life into the world, which was to older cultures quite mysterious, as it should be. Thus, women were linked to life, beauty, home, family, tribe, and the continuation of a culture. The Greeks recognized the role of women as sacred, again not necessarily in the religious sense. In fact, it seems that the ancient Greeks, along with other pagan cultures, deified the role of women by inventing goddesses to represent them. And that had to give women status that would make it difficult to view and treat them merely as sex objects, which really is a trivial way of viewing and treating women.”

“So what happened?”

“Judaism for one. The Jewish religion celebrates masculinity, not femininity. Goddesses were reviled and banished and replaced by a deification of masculinity—Yahweh. That Greek statues of goddesses were defaced by Christian mobs illustrates the Abrahamic religions’ hatred of the feminine as does their masculine God Yahweh, shown by his cruel treatment of the plucky ingénue Eve. With Judaism women fell from grace. They became servants of masculinity rather than the other way around.” 

***

 “And Homer's painting The Return of the Gleaner can help us understand the female-nature relationship because it shows the gleaner to be at one with the natural world that surrounds her.

And he must have considered that relationship to be profoundly meaningful because it shows up in many of his paintings, including The Gulf Stream.”

“Okay, I’m curious. You must explain that relationship.”

“I would love to. I’ll use The Return of the Gleaner because Homer uses symbols to express that relationship.”

“That would be great, but before you do I must ask why Homer’s paintings are so personally important to you, because they clearly are.”

“I was surprised by how deeply they spoke to me. I love his paintings because they are enchanting and because I agree with what they say about the human relationship to the Earth-world. Perhaps it’s also a bit of nostalgia.”

“For when you were young.”

“For a way of life that preceded even my own. A time and place that was of Homer’s, one he celebrated.”

“But you believe he knew the world was changing—becoming modern.”

“Most thinkers of the nineteenth century knew that. I don’t see how he couldn’t have known. I believe that knowledge must have partly inspired his paintings, but I can’t say for sure.”

“He paints a way of living that is precious and irreplaceable, yet lost in time.”

“Nicely put.”

“It’s odd how your thinking is so modern yet you’re really not a modern man.”

“Christine, you should have been a psychologist rather than a painter.”

“No. I’m too much like you and Homer for that. Besides, I find it difficult managing my own life.”

“But you’re right. I’ve lived a modern life in a modern world. I grew up in a modern city, fought in a modern war, lived aboard modern ships. And in a way I didn’t give my world much thought until I started reading.”

“And Homer’s paintings spoke to you about another way of living, another way of relating to the world?”

“They did. They spoke to me of a world I never knew and wish I had. You know I’ve never had the opportunity to discuss Homer’s paintings with someone until now. Not even with Mr. Sage. And I do enjoy talking with you. I know that you will agree with my appreciation of Homer’s work because you too are an artist.”

“Still, I learn from you what I didn’t learn in art classes.”

“In what way?”

“Your interpretations are more philosophical and less technical. More than that,  having lived in the wild lands of New Mexico I know something about the world appreciated by Homer. The world you call primordial. But let’s not drift away from your analysis of The Return of the Gleaner.”

“Then let’s begin. What I see in the painting is a primordial unity between the woman and nature—not simply in the fact that she is a peasant doing agricultural work. First of all, the rhythm of her work is determined by her physical relationship with the nature, not by the requirements of a machine. She holds a hay fork, which is a tool, not a machine. The difference is important. The hay fork doesn’t separate her from the wheat in the way a tractor or combine would. More symbolically, the woman’s head scarf is the same shape and color of the clouds. Her blue apron is the color of the sky, and it and her dress are stirred by the wind as is the wheat in the field. So to me the painting says she’s as much a part of nature as are the clouds and wheat.”

“Do you think viewers would see that?”

“If that’s what they’re looking for or sensitive to. They would if they were of the frame of mind that allowed them to see the unity of the woman and the rest of nature. The female-nature relationship is pretty universal.”

“So you’re interpretation sees the painting from a gestalt perspective.”

“I think so. Otherwise, the focus of the evaluation would be on the significance of the woman. She is front and center and her feminine presence dominates the painting. One could argue that she is a symbol of fertility inherent in nature.”

“A Demeter figure.”

“Exactly, and there is a paganistic quality to many of Homer’s paintings.”

“No references to Christianity?”

“Not in the book I read or in the paintings of his that I saw. There are country schools but no churches. I believe his worldview is contrary to Christianity, which considers humans essentially spiritual beings radically separated from nature. Whereas for Homer farmlands, pastures, forests, rivers and the sea are people’s primordial the settings, Christianity divides the world into the natural and the supernatural and the two are considered incompatible. The proper dwelling place for humans, at least mentally, is the supernatural experienced by going to church, reading the Bible, or praying. Eve turned away from the supernatural when she was drawn to a tree in nature. For that, the Bible has her punished. Christian morality demands separation. The First Epistle of John says, ‘Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.’ The flesh world is the material world. Thus, the Christian worldview is totally incompatible with Homer's.

 From Frank Kyle's unpublished The Girl and the Philosopher.

God, Blacks, and Civilization According to Winslow Homer's Paintings

“Let's go back to Homer’s view of the ocean since the ocean is important to you, and increasingly so to me?”

“Homer has many paintings of the ocean benefiting humans in various ways, as a source of beauty, recreation, work, and food. But it has a destructive side as well. The painting Undertow shows two women who were enjoying the ocean as bathers when they were caught in an undertow, in part having been weighed down by their waterlogged bathing dresses. Yet, Homer’s painting Summer Night shows two women dancing in the moonlight with the sea in the background. There is also a group of people sitting and marveling at the moon-lit sea. I believe the painting expresses Homer’s idealized vision of how life should be lived—joyfully and appreciatively. It might have been his painting that gave me the idea of appreciative awareness.”

“Did Homer talk about that?”

“Apparently he didn’t talk about his paintings at all. He wanted his paintings to speak to viewers as life spoke to him as a compassionate observer. Still, he was a philosophical painter. His philosophy of life is in his paintings.”

“About God as well, whom we once again have forgotten?”

“Forgetting about God is easy to do when discussing Homer’s paintings.”

“But I need to know what you think Homer’s paintings The Life Line, The Wreck of the Iron Crown, and Cast up by the sea say about God. You brought up the topic, and you’ve talked about Undertow, The Life Line and The Wreck of the Iron Crown. So tell me about Cast up by the sea and what the paintings say about God.”

“Your teachers must have loved you.”

“I wouldn’t go that far. I was a difficult student. Anyway, don’t stray from the topic of the sea and God.”

“Okay. Cast up by the sea describes a fisherman discovering a young woman’s body that has been washed up on a beach after a shipwreck. Like Undertow the painting is based actual events.”

“And what about God?”

“He is absent in all the paintings. In Undertow, Life Line and The Wreck of the Iron Crown people are rescued by men. In Cast up by the sea the woman drowned because there were no men to rescue her.”

“I get your point. You’re saying God is irrelevant because he is absent when people are at risk. People are saved or rescued by other people—men and women—but not by God. Thus people must rely upon themselves because they can’t rely on God.”

“That’s it exactly. And Homer’s paintings say that helping one another and appreciating life is what we should be doing, not killing one another in war.”

“So you got quite a lot from that book on Homer.”

“I did, but what I got that was most impressive is his view of life is quite simple yet profound. I would say that all one needs to know about life is contained in his paintings. Religion, philosophy, and science aren’t really needed when it comes down to how we need to live to achieve the good life, an ideal life.”

“It’s amazing how much you learned from one book.”

“No doubt other books help me interpret Homer’s paintings as well as my own lifeworld experiences. But Homer’s paintings sharpened my thinking about what I read and experienced. His paintings say stop, look, and think about what you see. Words can do that but not as vividly or emotionally. What Homer did that is most amazing is bring ideas alive by translating them into pictures.”

“Was Homer and optimist or a pessimist or both if that’s possible?”

“Judging by his paintings I would say he was a pessimist. He certainly appreciated life as magical and majestic, but believed it was always at risk—and that which was most precious was most vulnerable. As it turned out, history proved he had reason to be pessimistic.”

“You mean war?”

“War is the destructive torrent of masculinity. Men can be protectors and sustainers of life, but primordially their dominant tendency is aggression. And the primordial destructive tendencies of nature are by illustrated by the paintings of storms and sharks. ”

“But what did that all mean for Homer?”

“That fundamentally life consist of form and chaos. Form was most clearly represented by his pastoral paintings, paintings of women and children, but perhaps The Gulf Stream best illustrates his worldview.  Unlike most Americans then and now Homer’s paintings show compassion for black people, similar to but not as affectionate as his love for women and children.”

“Why was that?”

“I doubt he interacted much with black people, so knew them only as an observer. I can’t say for sure but Homer relationship to the world was similar to that of a scientist, more of an observer than a participant. He would isolate himself his Maine studio that looked out upon the ocean.”

“Like William Wordsworth’s relationship to the world as you explained his poem ‘The Solitary Reaper.’”

“Yes, but Wordsworth married and had children. Homer didn’t. He was completely devoted to his art, which to me makes sense because I believe he knew he had something important to say with his art.”

“In the way you’ve explained his art?”

“All I can say is that his paintings clearly value the fundamentals of life—love, beauty, family, work, friendship, and nature. From what I read, he dislike cities, and my guess would be he did because he saw them as artificial and perhaps even unwholesome entities.

“Environmentalists would agree. So do I.”

“They’re creations of man rather than of nature. I suppose what I’m saying, and I may be wrong, is that Homer believed white society had become increasingly artificial, whereas the black society of his time retained its roots to the organic world. At least the paintings show as much.”

“That sounds a little racist.”

“I know.”

“Have you known many black people?”

“A few, but not many.”

“And...?”

“In my experience black people always came across as less judgmental of people, whereas white people tend to categorize people according to race, religion, nationality, occupation, or some other category. That was probably even truer in Homer’s time. Getting back to The Gulf Stream, the painting indicates Homer’s view that all we value is threatened by chaotic forces, be they caused by men or by nature.”

“Not women?”

“I don’t see how, and apparently neither did Homer.”

“And the black man on the boat?”

“Well, he lives close to nature as a fisherman. He is accepting of its hardships. What I see in the man isn’t philosophical stoicism, an intellectual acceptance of life’s hardships, but something more profound. He accepts what nature has to offer for better or worse because he is part of nature. As a fisherman he kills the fish that would kill him. In the struggle for life they are bound together. And his closeness to nature would have appealed to Homer, who was a fisherman of nature’s beautiful and sublime characteristics. However, I find this painting as indicating that Homer’s frame of mind as being pessimistic. The year was 1899. The Gilded Age of American corruption had already been severely criticized by Mark Twain in 1873 in a book of that title. In addition, the Industrial Age was also in full swing. A new world order associated with technology, industrialization, and urbanization that was disagreeable to many artists was emerging. According to Homer’s paintings, I don’t see how the new industrialized world would appeal to him. Besides that the plight of black Americans hadn’t improved much beyond their no longer being slaves. In addition, nature was taking a beating from the civilization process. Two of Homer’s painting that I recall indicate that he was aware of the destructive side of civilization. Waiting for a Bite shows two boys fishing in the foreground. Behind them is a field of tree stumps indicating a forest had been clear cut. The rust colored vegetation creates a desolate landscape.

The other painting Landscape shows a field of tree stumps. The message seems to be that the civilizing process destroys nature, creating a lifeless setting. The tone of these paintings is much different from the paintings showing boys frolicking in green fields.

 From Frank Kyle's unpublished The Girl and the Philosopher