In Genesis 19, we saw that Lot and his daughters escaped from Sodom, and Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt because she made the mistake of turning round to see the Lord destroy the city. We are now towards the end of Genesis 19, where Lot and his daughters have gone up into the mountains and are hanging out in a cave. They are alone, and this solitude worries the elder daughter. She says to her sister that their father is old, and there is no one else around, and they have to ensure their family line continues, and why don’t we get dad drunk, then I’ll sleep with him, then you can sleep with him, and we’ll get pregnant and hey presto line is continued.
So, the elder sister gets dad drunk, sleeps with him; ‘he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up’; and the next day she suggests to her sister she do the same, which she does – again, Lot doesn’t realise that any of this has happened. And so, it comes to pass that….
‘So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.’
– The daughters obviously feel that maintaining the family line is important. Perhaps, they also feel that there are not a lot of folk left after the Lord’s destruction of the cities. This is real dedication to the family, and helps ensure the longevity of Abraham’s line (the line that the Lord had promised would last). I have a feeling that this family line may, following the course of time, prove to be an important one.
– It should not be assumed that the daughters lusted after their father, or vice versa (which the following paintings generally fail to acknowledge…).
– Did they have time to collect wine before they fled Sodom?
– They must have gotten Lot very drunk for him not to realise. Twice.
– The text is very careful to ensure that Lot is not to blame for what happens, in fact, he had no idea! So, all potential shame is placed on the sisters. How can someone be guilty of something they did not know they had done?
– I am looking forward to hearing about Lot’s reaction to the pregnancies, once they start to show.
– It is possible that Lot is being punished (raped) for previously offering his daughters to the townspeople in Sodom. What he was prepared to put his daughters through, is now being done unto him.
There is an enormous amount of painting dedicated to this biblical scene. I imagine it gave artists and patrons the opportunity to have some sexy paint on their walls while still maintaining a certain amount of piousness. The range of approaches is not very wide though. I have chosen the following as some have unusual touches, or are generally representative of the subject. Also, sometimes this scene is called ‘The Rape of Lot by his Daughters’. (CLICK ON IMAGES TO GET A BIGGER IMAGE AND A BETTER VIEW OF THINGS)
Firstly, the Gentileschi’s – father and daughter. Orazio (the father) has painted two L&hD’s. They are pretty restrained, the first showing a tenderness, with Lot almost being mothered. There isn’t so much sexiness, other than the daughter in yellow’s dress slipping off. The wine is knocked over, and Lot seems knocked out. I’m guessing this is inbetween daughters. The group are entwined with complexity, of limbs and colour. One daughter points off to the distance, probably to Sodom to indicate the fate of the city, and perhaps the families lack of male options to come… Its pretty serene this one.
In his second, later version, there is more of a sense of space, plus a bit more sexiness. One daughter (perhaps the elder) seems to be trying to convince the other of something. Again, Lot seems to be treated with motherly/daughterly tenderness rather than sensuality. The wine is knocked over again, but there is an addition of vine leaves, which might serve to answer the question of whether they brought wine from Sodom or not. I really like the colour of the sky and vine together, a hint of bright hopefulness in the midst of the cave.
Here we have Orazio’s own daughter, Artemisia’s version. It’s interesting to think of the closeness of relationship these two may have shared (Artemisia trained in her fathers workshop) and how it might have affected their approach to the subject matter. Both certainly are straining to a complexity of emotions between all 3 characters in the paintings. Lot in this painting is clearly in the process of becoming drunk, and his affection is growing, a hand on his daughters shoulder, another approaching her elbow. It seems a plan is underway. I do wonder if its a good idea to give Lot a slice of bread though, if you’re wanting to get him drunk. The other daughter tenderly touches Lot’s own shoulder about to ask if he wants more wine. Lot’s cheeks are rosy. In the background, mother is turned to salt. Vine leaves are silhouetted in the opening of the cave.
Here we get a bit more raunchy. Simon Vouet paints Lot in a stupor, happy to fondle his daughters breast. He moves his head back a bit in an attempt to regain focus of his daughters face. She meanwhile lifts a leg over his and gazes into his eyes. The second daughter is grinning a wee bit, and struggles to hold onto the grand vase which looks like it could hold plenty of vino – she also seems to be pulling something out of a purse, obviously not a condom – it looks like a digestive biscuit. Lot has lost control, and the entire episode has an unpleasant creepiness to it, which the Gentileschi’s do not.
Joachim Wtewaeil was a flax merchant as well as a painter, but there is a distinct lack of flax here. He was apparently known for inserting sensual, suggestive elements into his nude paintings, and I dare say the pinkish, folded cloth on the ground beneath the nude daughter may be one of these, plus all the ripe and rotting fruit. There’s also a strange bulbous white growth under the nude daughters elbow, which looks pretty testicle-like. Maybe I’m seeing too much. There is an abundance of fruit and wine here, and a difference being that the daughters too seem to have drunk a bit. Their cheeks are rosy as well (though many things make rosy cheeks). Lot’s drunk looking, but not out of control, and daughter two seems to approach him for a kiss. Again, this seems more about getting away with sexy paint than representing any complex moral situation.
I can’t find much out about this one, but once again, sexual gratification for the viewer seems important here. Lot’s right knee, covered in his robe, seems to have taken on the shape of a giant cock. The see through fabric that almost comes straight out of this cock-knee is not too subtle either. Daughter is grinning, but Lot has a very forced uncomfortable expression. Daughter 2 is also topless, and pouring wine from an extravagant height. Daughter 1 has a strange necklace on, with what I’m guessing is the face of Jesus on it – I don’t know what that means, perhaps all this terrible, unavoidable sexiness is being held together by religious intent and nothing else.
I like this Paul Cezanne, not for its depiction of the scene, but because it seems that Daughter has just leapt into Lot’s lap, almost straight on to his boner. While his face suggests surprise, his right hand suggests readiness. Its the only painting which really has sexual energy in it- there is heat, darkness, fleshiness.
This one is quite weird – there’s a lot of pottery, and the figures and clothing all look a bit like porcelain. They have almost transparent skin, and there is just a hint of pinkishness on Lots cheeks and nose. Lots left hand is relaxed, his right daintily begins to undress his daughter, and he gazes down in anticipation of the soon to be revealed breast. It’s all very cold and passionless, not to mention a lack of moral distress. The strangest thing though is that the rock Lot is sat on seems to be wrapped in cloth. It also (honestly) has a hint of glans penis about it. There is a glacial stillness to the painting which I quite like, it just doesn’t seem appropriate to the scene. Francheschini’s paintings all seem to have this porcelain stillness.
Well, this one has a couple of things going for it as far as I’m concerned. First, Lot is reeking. His eyes are all over the place, his fingers aren’t working properly, his legs are spread, and there’s no chance of him standing up without causing all kinds of mess. Secondly, the daughter on the left is posing in a convincingly post-coitus manner, languid, stretching, maybe about to fall asleep. This painting feels exhausted. In fact, maybe Lot isn’t that knackered, maybe he’s attempting to get up for round two. As an aside, apparently Jacob van Loo killed a man in an inn in Amsterdam, and had to flee to Paris. Positively Caravaggian.
Now this one is just ridiculous. What a barrel of laughs they are having, not a care in the world. Looking at some more of Jean-Francois de Troy‘s work, he seems like a class I pompoustier.
This is another Joachim Wtewael. I put this one in, partly because everyone is a bit green, but also because it seems to further add to the fantasy of the (male) viewer, by adding a little touch of potential lesbian action – daughter on the left is looking over to daughter on the right adoringly, while just about to touch her with a raised big toe…I’m also intrigued by Lot’s choice of breast touching technique.
Johann Rottmayr makes the list due to the fanstastic drunken stare in Lot’s eyes. He is 100% waltered.
Marcelle Hanselaar is the only contemporary artist in this list, she is also only the second woman. What I like about this is that the daughters are clearly in charge here, whether Lot likes it or not. Plus, it is the first to show the actual sexual act, and the daughter is on top and in charge, for responsible and practical reasons. I don’t know what one of the daughters is hiding, it looks like a mirror.
And finally, Otto Dix’s interpretation. This is the best drunken Lot – he is grinning with his moustache, and his gaze and raised hand are actually depicted in the act of missing the glass of wine. He cannot focus at all. His right hand is curling up at something, the nothingness just out of grasp of every true drunkard. The daughter (again on top) seems to be using the wine as a distraction while she mounts him, and this is another more complex representation of the act. The other daughter however looks a little too pleased with the proceedings. Is she undressing or covering up? In the background Sodom burns.
So, Genesis 10 & 11 is basically a long list of the generations of Noah, all but one of whom is a man. Also, judging by the amount of sons that some people had, I reckon Canaan and Eber are going to have big roles to play.
I found it all very confusing so made a handy diagram to make sense of it all (click on image to increase size). Apparently this is also known as a Table of Nations. Here are some other people’s versions.
After God floods the earth, once the rain stops after 40 days, Noah sends a raven out off the boat who “went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth” then he sends a dove – the dove comes back with nothing, then heads out again, returns again, this time with an olive branch. This is proof the waters have abated, the year is 601, the first day of the first month.
Later, once they are settled down again, God makes a covenant with Noah and says he’ll never do it again and “I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud”
That’s a nice image. God also
“blessed Noah and his sons”
So, Noah now can relax a little, and in Genesis 9:20;
“Noah began to be a husbandman, and he planted a vineyard;
And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethern without.
And Shem and Japeth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their fathers nakedness.”
So, Noah gets drunk, one of his sons sees him naked, tells the others, they cover him up without looking.
“And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren”
So, Noah is pissed off because his son (Ham) has seen him naked, so he then curses his own Grandson (Canaan, Ham’s son) and condemns him to be a slave of slaves.
1. Nobody is concerned about the whereabouts of the raven.
2. God put a bow in the clouds. I am hoping to learn what became of this (or at least what natural phenomenon it refers to).
3. Nakedness is worse thank drunkenness. Unless seeing his father naked is not what is meant by Noah knowing “what his younger son had done unto him”. Is there some other unmentioned crime that Ham has committed while his father was drunk and naked?
4. Noah is a mean man who punishes his Grandson for his father’s (perceived) failings. However, it may be the case that as Noah and his sons are blessed by God, his grandson’s aren’t, so Noah can curse Canaan but not Ham.
I am reading the bible, and trying to get my head around what must surely be one of the best selling books of the last two millennia. I will sporadically be writing these, with some art historical images and my understanding of what is being written. It might take a while because it’s quite long. I am reading the King James version. Feel free to tell me that I am wrong or have misunderstood. Obviously I am reading without knowing too much about what happens later in the bible, so I might make certain assumptions which I later contradict. Oh well. First up, some Garden of Eden.
In Genesis 3:5, the serpent (who is not described as anything other than a serpent) tells Eve not to worry about eating the fruit of the tree (not apple specifically) in the midst of the garden, because unlike God has said, it won’t kill her. In fact, the serpent says God doesn’t want you to eat it, because if you do you will have your eyes opened and you shall become like Gods.
She eats it, and indeed her eyes are opened, and she can see she is naked. She doesn’t die though, and though it might be imagined that by eating the fruit, humankind has been made to suffer and die forever, God says later he is getting rid of Adam and Eve from the garden to ensure that they don’t also eat from the Tree of Life –
“And the LORD God said; Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken” – Genesis 3:22
So God doesn’t want them to eat from the Tree of Life, because then they will be immortal. So, they were already mortal, and thereby the serpent told the truth about God’s reasons for telling them not to eat it. It didn’t kill her, she became aware of good and evil and they have become like Gods. I don’t know why that is plural, but God himself says “man is become as one of us” which is to say he is a God among Gods.
1. The serpent can be relied upon to tell the truth.
2. God said they would die on the day they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, but they didn’t.
3. Adam & Eve were already mortal, because only if they ate from the Tree of Life would they “live for ever”
4. There is not just one God, or, at least God thinks there are others he counts to be “us”.
5. It might not have been an apple.