Talk:Funerary art in Puritan New England

Willow and Urn
The Willow and Urn motif is early New England, but earliest examples are more late 18th century and not Puritan at all. Unless the scope of the article is expanded, I’m not sure it belongs in the article, and certainly not so prominently. User:Kafka Liz a girl is no one 13:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Moving here for discussion. Note none of this is cited as particularly relevant. I agree citing Sumeria is streaching it, esp given we say in the lead that the stone masons were sort of on a year zero mission, rejecting most of what had gone before.

Willow and Urn
Typically seen as a European symbol, the tree of life has been significant since Sumerian times. The Puritans took this symbol and created their own versions. The tree can be interpreted as life in celestial paradise or as the human life; however, during the 18th century the two were used interchangeably by the New Englanders. In the 19th century, the weeping willow made a distinctive entrance.

The willow suggests a Greek revival in architecture and a shift in emphasis away from the fate of the soul of the deceased, but instead the mourning of those left behind. The urn is a container to hold ashes used in Imperial Rome. Usage of these icons was part of a larger style toward sentimentality in mourning art. This redirected the emotional output of those left behind. Instead of fearing their loved ones damnation, this depiction is much more peaceful. For example, "Here lies the body of" is replaced by "In memory of." There was also a transition from slate to marble. The evolution of style of death's head, and urn and willow design is to be found in almost every cemetery in New England. The emblems of death shifted as the societal interpretation of life and hereafter changed from terror to peace.

Tweak or gut at will Liz. Ceoil (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * If this is to be included, it very much belongs as a sort of tail note about how religion and the common mindset were turning elsewhere. As I said, if we’re talking early New England, it belongs, and should be expanded and clarified. If it’s just Puritans - it has no place at all. They weren’t about Classicism or hope. They were sinners in the hands of an angry God, though that’s a late reference. They did not believe in redemption through works, nor that the afterlife was a place of peace. User:Kafka Liz a girl is no one 14:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood. Soon as eircom, if it ever, comes back will email the pdfs from JSTOR), which thorough on this chronology. Or we could buy a memory stick. There is vast literature *now* but the topic wasn't really studied until the 1930s (i'm reading) if you can believe that. Also, can you upload whatever pics you have from your collection to commons Liz; there are surprising few pics there, or at least I havnt found the right category to search. Ceoil  (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I won’t put them on Commons, but if I find anything useful, I’m happy to add it here. There’s lots on my old laptop, if we can make it work. User:Kafka Liz a girl is no one 15:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of the old grave yard around Kittery that you brought my dad to. You took a lot of pics that day....hopefully still intact as you don't loose phones as easily as I do. Ceoil  (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Early-weaned children
I’ve literally never heard this before. It’s my understanding that breastfeeding helps lessen the chance of pregnancy. Puritans and other early New Englanders were mindful of the fact that many children died under a year; I doubt that they would hurry to wean children given these circumstances. It’s part of why most early families had kids almost two years apart: the breastfeeding was done and everything else was all systems go. User:Kafka Liz a girl is no one 14:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Also we need mortality rate for both 17th c adults and children. Ceoil  (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Harder to determine, for lots of reasons, but we can try. There are examples of folks who lived well into their 90s, though it’s rare. Women tended to die younger than men, for obvious reasons. User:Kafka Liz a girl is no one 14:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The graves we saw in MA and Maine that had very bitter carvings; eg "ye all hated me while alive, but forsooth look at me now, who outlive yea all!" (In Boston central I think, and the one that stood out for Con when he was over), and those cursing God for taking their wife early; presumably they are late 18th c and outside of scope here? Ceoil  (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The ones you remember are sort of late. That sort of thing is very uncommon before the 19th century, at least in the States. So yes, out of scope. They are great - it’s nice to see personality reflected on a gravestone, but for this period, it just wasn’t done. They didn’t really think of life as a good thing, certainly not something to be celebrated. It was literally all about God, and the thing is, even then, you had no certainty of being saved. User:Kafka Liz a girl is no one 14:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'm not adding much atm, as reading through your Ludwig book. As much as the iconography, the cultural reasons they went for such basic, linear and directly confrontational drawings is what I'm trying to get straight in my head. Ceoil  (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Move proposal
From this to Colonial New England funerary art. Early New England funerary art also works. The scope of this article is currently too narrow and frankly doesn’t allow the reader to connect to the sub just as a whole. Either title is fine with me. User:Kafka Liz a girl is no one 16:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm open Liz and defer to your knowledge, but as in the move rational, I'm approaching from a rejection of Catholicism POV, what with being an ex catholic / militant atheist and all. Also that the went from baroque art to simple but highly effective line designs reminds me of punk rock in the late 70s, which is where my aesthetic heart lies. But open as I say to discussion. Ceoil  (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Scope
Liz, still unhappy in my head as to what this article is actually about. By New England do we mean Massachusetts & Maine, where the vast majority are concentrated. By Puritan do we mean, my preference, the first two or three generations of pilgrims...by which I mean, this art gots gradually less and less interesting as it developed over time. Ceoil (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes... but I think I’ll bow out of the conversation for a few. User:Kafka Liz a girl is no one 17:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Carvers
I found this source, which gives a nice overview re why no "graven images" & covers individual stone carvers. It might be helpful so leaving it here for you all. The article is looking good. Victoria (tk) 20:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that source, in plain English, resolves a lot of issues I had been struggling with. Where I am completly falling down is end of scope, seeming somewhere around 1800, and the softer imagery urns and willows, but not sure what underlying forces brough this about. Frankly I want to stay in the 17th & up to mid 18th century century here, focused on the "attitude towards death" sect, which is my real interest; do.not.want to get into Unitarianism and Methodism, if can find a handy divider. Ceoil  (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've only skimmed that source, but was interested in the section re the stone carver/s. If you can't see all the pages let me know - I'll take screen shots, so you can use if you think it's helpful. Re end of scope, agree that earlier rather than later & my inclination would be to stick only with puritans & ignore all the various other sects, etc. My memory, without looking it up, is that puritanism morphed into something else fairly quickly. Would have look up what the "something else" is. Looks like the article is growing nicely. I'm quite impressed. Victoria (tk) 21:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The article now ends on 1840, with a brief overview with what happened after, which could be neatly termed "philistinism". From the breakdown of the different styles over the centuries, I agree with the implied distain in these categoisations


 * "Monumentalism" (1840–1920): Defiance
 * "Modern Plain Style" (1900–2001): Ignorance

Article now says "Of these [six categorizations], the first three are strictly "puritan", before the style softened as Unitarianism and Methodism became more popular.[23]" - but this is muddy still, its proving difficult to delineate the scope for the page.

I can see all the pages, and thank you very much for finding, it gives very rich and articulate insights. Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The big break in religion was the Great Awakening and of course Jonathan Edwards. Anything before was English puritanism; anything after was purely American. Victoria (tk) 21:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC) P.s - I've downloaded a couple of sources from Jstor & if I get a chance will take a look. But, mostly, I'm awol these days. Still, it's an interesting topic and back in the day I could have spouted a lot about Jonathan Edwards, the Great Awakening, & the changes both wrought. Not anymore. But the sources might refresh my brain, if that's possible. Be safe! Victoria (tk) 21:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Appros of nothing, did you notice this?. Was a bit disappointed, but I suppose grand. Ceoil  (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have that page on watch, but oof. Will think about it. Thanks for pointing it out. Victoria (tk) 00:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to attempt a delineation around the Great Awakening, and have found sources that relate it back to headstone styles; nonetheless, would appreciate if you kept and eye. Also, yes, oof. Ceoil  (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Zerubbabel Collins
I've just made a page on Zerubbabel Collins, but as I have no knowledge of the subject I wonder if any of the kind editors here might be able to expand it? It seems a shame not to have some photos of his work, but I can't see any obvious ones on Commons. Also, could he be linked to in this article? Stronach (talk) 09:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Stronach, just looking now; very interesting article. Ceoil (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ceoil. Good to see the orphan tag gone from Zerubbabel. Stronach (talk)