One has to wonder whether the story does have some sort of truth in it. It is not possible that the body was stored away, fully clothed until the money was found to have this pyramid built on top so his last dying wish could be fulfilled? It's doubtful but there has to be a reason in the 17 year wait.
Sounds unlikely, mate. This makes a lovely story for the Shiverpool and Slemen tours. But. . .
The fact is that the pyramid monument was put up by Mackenzie's brother as a final resting place for Mr Mackenzie and his wife and others, which in itself makes it unlikely that 17 years after his demise Mackenzie was given the honor of sitting in a chair holding a winning hand. Did anything appear in the press at the time of him being put in the pyramid tomb that his corpse was arranged such a position? I assume not. Correct me if I am wrong. So, this is just a legend, and probably not true at all. Right?
It's written in pretty dense Chancery Script and it may be a while before I have to time to sit down and transcribe it but in my quick overview I haven't found any mention of a pyramid, gambling or indeed any above ground internment at all.
Excellent detective work fortinian - there's some really good stuff here. It seems like Mackenzie was a very considerate and respectful man, as far as his family was concerned. The fact that the pyramid is not explicitly mentioned in the will, casts even more doubt on on the validity on card playing, royal flush story.
The instruction for the monument came from his brother Edward, some 17 years later, following the death of James MacKenzie's wife. Edward seems to have followed his brother's wishes for a monument to be placed on the family tomb. But the pyramid could well be proved to be his choice of memorial, rather than his brother's instruction? It could be that such an unsual monument was singled out for mockery and insult, by people who were jealous of his successes, and perhaps scornful of his unorthodoxies?
We may be doing James MacKenzie a service, in quoshing the original rumour as false?
One point dazza, it was William Mackenzie - not James. The James idea is a Slemenism... Tom Slemen claims he did it so he could identify people who where stealing his stories... much like Leonardo Da Vinci included deliberate mistakes in many of his plans to foil thieves.
It doesn't help that Tom Slemen has never formally corrected the Haunted Liverpool book that it appears in or that for some time he was to be heard on the radio calling him 'William James Mackenzie'.
I think you are right that the pyramid was his brothers design, Mackenzie probably did want a memorial but I think it was more down to his brother than him. I'm trying to find out some sort of context for Pyramid memorials... I know there was an increased interest in Egypt during the Romantic Period... but Mackenzie's death was too late for that... similarly there was an interest in Egypt from the fin de siecle up until the 1930s but he would be too early for that. Maybe his brother just liked pyramids?
We may be doing James MacKenzie a service, in quoshing the original rumour as false?
As for doing him a service, I think we are in correcting the slights on his name.
But I am more concerned about the service to history itself. It is a brilliant story but it has remained unchalledged for far too long - even guidebooks are quoting it.
He was clearly a man who loved Liverpool, it's clear to see that from his Will and the fact that he was known in business as Mackenzie of Paris and Liverpool.
One point dazza, it was William Mackenzie - not James. The James idea is a Slemenism... Tom Slemen claims he did it so he could identify people who where stealing his stories... much like Leonardo Da Vinci included deliberate mistakes in many of his plans to foil thieves.
Apologies, I meant 'William', not James, thanks for correcting.
Originally Posted by fortinian
I think you are right that the pyramid was his brothers design, Mackenzie probably did want a memorial but I think it was more down to his brother than him. I'm trying to find out some sort of context for Pyramid memorials...
William Mackenzie's younger brother, partner and heir, Edward Mackenzie, died 27th Sept 1880, at Henley-on-Thames. His mausoleum at St Mary's Church, Fawly, certainly has hints of Egyptian Revival about it [picture attached]. Normally 'the winged sun' [a symbol for Horus, the sky god] was placed above temple doors to symbolise man's eternal nature. The pediment sculpture has wings, but I can't be certain whether it's a representation of Horus, without a more detailed photo? The pyramid on top is helpful however.
Originally Posted by fortinian
I know there was an increased interest in Egypt during the Romantic Period...
Actually the interest started much earlier than that, in part, owing to Nelson's victory at the battle of the Nile [1798] which loosened Napoleon's grip on Egypt. That and also his eventual defeat in 1815 [although British occupation of Egypt wasn't until 1882-1922].
John Taylor published The Great Pyramid: Why Was It Built? & Who Built It? in 1859 [pub. same year as Darwin's Origin of Species] Wiki entry here. Charles Piazzi Smyth, in his book Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid [pub. in 1864] 'claimed, and presumably believed, that the pyramid inch was a God-given measure handed down through the centuries from the time of Israel, and that the architects of the pyramid could only have been directed by the hand of God' - Wiki quote, see 'Piazzi Smyth, Charles'.
And as Christian apologists today still try and fact fit dinosaurs into the Noah's ark myth, so did the Victorians in attempting to prove that the measurements of pyramids, were related to the biblical 'cubit' [about 457.2mm] and the King Jame's bible version of events. I think it was an honest enquiry, but doomed to fail, as most trying to fit-the-facts to suit a cherished belief, or myth normally do.
I feel certain that Edward would have known, or even possible read some of this material. And for a contractor working on the continent, he would have encountered the metric system, and the ongoing problem of a standardisation. [It would be interesting to know the exact dimensions of the Rodney Street pyramid - as he may of played around with this?] But in a wider context, absorbing a classic pagan symbol, such as a 'pyramid' into the church, albeit a presbyterian church, such as St Andrew's, may have offered an alternative interpretation [outside of Rome] as to what constituted god's works?
Interestly enough, just looking around the sites this afternoon, it seems that prothestant Victorians, including Presbyterians, had 'Pagan' funerary memorials, rather than 'Christian'. ie: Greek vases, Greek Temples, broken columns, inverted torch's, egyptian obelisks, egyptian mausoleums. Maybe they occur in Catholic cemeteries, though I'd expect to see more angels and crosses there instead?
Brilliant once again dazza, top info. I particuarly like the idea that Mackenzie was playing around with the dimensions of the pyramid... now all I need is a tape measure and a way into the church!
Edward's mausoleum is strikingly similar in concept... one wonders if the pyramid was cleaned up would it be of the same material?
As for your ideas of pagan imagery in christian sites. Classical architecture has long had a central place in Christianity. The early Xtian basillicas where converted roman temples (Think of the Pantheon, now a church) so in a way ecclesiastical architecture was taken to be greco-roman, especially in the rennaisance when the classical world was held to be the highest form of civilisation (look at Christopher Wrens churches). Gothic architecture was considered to be suspiciously Catholic so the protestants liked the greco-roman stuff.
The image of the urn is a reminder of the Roman cremation customs.
The broken column means life cut short or indeed the last member of a family who dies without heirs.
The upside down torch is particuarly christian however... if you turned a normal torch upside down it would extinguish... but these torches are still lit representing eternal life.
I was going to write more but then I found this apt description:
Curiously, many of the monuments in Victorian cemeteries are not actually Christian, but rather pagan ? classical (Roman) or Egyptian. Christianity in 19th-century Britain was predominantly Church of England (Protestant), but with worrying challenges from various Protestant sects (Methodists, Presbyterians) as well as a movement towards "High" Anglicanism ? incorporating elements of Catholicism into the Church of England.
What Victorians put on their graves sometimes reflected their religious positions ? though in counter-intuitive ways. For instance, some Church of Englanders felt that a cross was too Catholic a symbol, and reacted by deliberately using non-Christian symbols such as columns or urns on their graves. Gothic architecture was also considered by some to be linked to the Catholic Church. However, Egyptian architecture was not linked with any Christian movements, and so was popular with everyone.
Brilliant once again dazza, top info. I particuarly like the idea that Mackenzie was playing around with the dimensions of the pyramid... now all I need is a tape measure and a way into the church!
Thanks mate - likewise. You've been supplying some top-notch and solid research, all very interesting stuff.
The 'Pyramid Inch' [ref. here] is one twenty-fifth of a sacred 'cubit' = 1.00106 British inches. The difference is marginally small as you can see. Lets say, for argument's sake, that MacKenzie's Pyramid in Rodney Steet is 15 feet high. The difference between the British Inch measurement and the Pyramid Inch measurement would only lead to the Pyramid being a 1/5th of an inch taller, over it's entire height. About 5mm, in today's money.
The original drawing would be more useful, though I doubt it exists anymore? The problem with a tape measurement is that the contractor, may have built it over tolerance, and so the 5mm would be lost before you even got your tape measure out. Pity.
Originally Posted by fortinian
Edward's mausoleum is strikingly similar in concept... one wonders if the pyramid was cleaned up would it be of the same material?
The Mackenzie family mausoleum [at Fawly] was built in 1862, and is constructed Aberdeen Granite.
Originally Posted by fortinian
As for your ideas of pagan imagery in christian sites. Classical architecture has long had a central place in Christianity. The early Xtian basillicas where converted roman temples (Think of the Pantheon, now a church) so in a way ecclesiastical architecture was taken to be greco-roman, especially in the rennaisance when the classical world was held to be the highest form of civilisation (look at Christopher Wrens churches). Gothic architecture was considered to be suspiciously Catholic so the protestants liked the greco-roman stuff.
It was easier for the church to absorb symbols, than to distroy them. As the Christians did of the Roman's, and the Roman's did of the Greeks.
Originally Posted by fortinian
Curiously, many of the monuments in Victorian cemeteries are not actually Christian, but rather pagan ? classical (Roman) or Egyptian... What Victorians put on their graves sometimes reflected their religious positions ? though in counter-intuitive ways. For instance, some Church of Englanders felt that a cross was too Catholic a symbol, and reacted by deliberately using non-Christian symbols such as columns or urns on their graves....However, Egyptian architecture was not linked with any Christian movements, and so was popular with everyone.
You'd think that polytheism was alive and well in Victorian society, but I guess is was just recycling existing Egyptian, Greek and Roman myths, art, literature and styles of architecture, rather than personally upholding a belief in the gods they once represented.
You'd think that polytheism was alive and well in Victorian society, but I guess is was just recycling existing Egyptian, Greek and Roman myths, art, literature and styles of architecture, rather than personally upholding a belief in the gods they once represented.
Hi Fortinian and Dazza
I think it was less that the Victorians and the Georgians before them believed in pagan ideas and more that those styles of design and architecture were popular. Egyptian influences of course came in after Napoleon's adventures in Egypt.
Major General Robert Ross's 100-foot granite obelisk in Rostrevor, County Down is obviously based on classical designs of similar monuments in Rome but it has a winged eye device on it that comes from Egyptian motifs, as does Baltimore's triumphant Battle Monument to the dead of the Battle of Baltimore of September 1814 and in celebration of the defeat of the British during which Ross was killed in a skirmish before the Battle of North Point.
Ross's monument in St. Paul's Cathedral, London, shown at bottom, is obviously also of classical design with the weeping figure of Britannia and another figure holding a laurel wreath over the general's head. But no one would say Ross was not a Christian. In fact his elder brother Thomas Ross was a minister of the episcopal Church of Ireland.
I think it was less that the Victorians and the Georgians before them believed in pagan ideas and more that those styles of design and architecture were popular. Egyptian influences of course came in after Napoleon's adventures in Egypt.
Major General Robert Ross's 100-foot granite obelisk in Rostrevor, County Down is obviously based on classical designs of similar monuments in Rome but it has a winged eye device on it that comes from Egyptian motifs, as does Baltimore's triumphant Battle Monument to the dead of the Battle of Baltimore of September 1814 and in celebration of the defeat of the British during which Ross was killed in a skirmish before the Battle of North Point.
Ross's monument in St. Paul's Cathedral, London, shown at bottom, is obviously also of classical design with the weeping figure of Britannia and another figure holding a laurel wreath over the general's head. But no one would say Ross was not a Christian. In fact his elder brother Thomas Ross was a minister of the episcopal Church of Ireland.
Thanks Chris, you're right. I was perhaps mischievously sticking my tongue-in-cheek at the ghoulish appearance of polytheism in Victorian society, but that aside, I totally agree with you that it was more a recycling or 'resurrection' if you'll permit me of pagan styles gone before.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."... ... ... Mark Twain.
Thanks Chris, as Dazza said, you're right. You must remember that the 'gothick' kick off of Pugin et al was as a statemant against the percieved paganism of the neoclassical. Pugin himself didn't use the term gothic, he prefered to call it 'pointed' or 'christian'.
In a roundabout way, St Andrews church itself is a fantastic example of greek-revival favoured by Foster. Greek-revival was the later stage of neoclassical architecture and shows an increased influence of the greek ruins that where being explored for the first time by the west in the late 1700s.
The differences are subtle, but many. Compare St Andrews (greek-revival) to St Brides which is more standard neoclassical.
Thanks Chris, as Dazza said, you're right. You must remember that the 'gothick' kick off of Pugin et al was as a statemant against the percieved paganism of the neoclassical. Pugin himself didn't use the term gothic, he prefered to call it 'pointed' or 'christian'.
In a roundabout way, St Andrews church itself is a fantastic example of greek-revival favoured by Foster. Greek-revival was the later stage of neoclassical architecture and shows an increased influence of the greek ruins that where being explored for the first time by the west in the late 1700s.
The differences are subtle, but many. Compare St Andrews (greek-revival) to St Brides which is more standard neoclassical.
Thanks, Fortinian. Good point about Pugin and the Gothic Revival being a reaction to the perceived paganism of neoclassicism. There's a nice example of Pugin's work at Scarisbrick Hall outside of Southport. I have not been there but the photographs of the hall make it look very dramatic and worth seeing.
Odd Church that one Daz. From what I can gather on the internet it's not a gravemarker, it's suggested that it was intended for the tower of the church but was never added.
Of couse the Dan Brown/Masonic/Illuminati contingent are all over it but it really seems a bit of a mystery to be honest.
Originally Posted by Cadfael
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks