- 1 Simulacra and Interregna: Medieval Royal Effigies
- 2 Better Dead: Communist Embalming
- 3 Live and Let Die
- 4 References
Simulacra and Interregna: Medieval Royal Effigies
The emergence and assumed significance of the royal effigy is a matter of peculiar happenstance, particularly in England where the practice was first popularized. Early English medieval royal funerals obeyed the common religious traditions of the day: as Woodward dryly notes, “the corpse itself was exhibited” (65). This display was rather simple and held no obvious or uniquely political symbolic value. For instance, Edward I (otherwise knowb as Edward the Confessor), who died in first days of 1066, and William I (otherwise know as William the Conqueror), who passed away in 1087, were both “carried to their graves unembalmed and covered on a bier” (65). The concealed bodies were subject to no special post-mortem preservative treatment; little attention was paid to attire. As Chamberlain and Pearson argue, these funerals had been "low-key and even shambolic affairs. Far from venerating the royal corpse, the court appeared to treat it as an unpleasant problem: William I's corpse was left unattended for rather too long and then disintegrated when it was being stuffed into its coffin. The burial service for this great king was conducted as quickly as possible because he smelt so bad" (26). The unadorned body, though the object of a spectacular procession, remained hidden away. This was a limited form of publicity: the dead king was not showcased by way of direct exposure, bur rather through the physical circulation of the covered body. Evidentiary and commemorative circulation did not require line-of-sight verification. The ritualistic value of the procession was not yet tied to any spectacular display of the exposed body. This tradition persisted even in the event of embalming: “[t]he corpse of Henry I, who died in France in 1135, was rudely embalmed to facilitate its transport back to England but it was still borne covered upon a bier” (66).
This changed with the 1189 death of Henry II. His was the first royal body to be openly displayed and arrayed in the coronation ornaments. The first use of a funeral effigy, however, dates to either the 1272 death of Henry III or 1327 death of Edward II. Woodward speculates that a wax effigy appeared in the funeral procession for Henry III, although no material record of the effigy exists. The wood effigy of Edward II, on the other hand, is still on display in Gloucester Cathedral, the original location of his burial. What accounts for this shift in royal funeral rituals? The open display of the body was consistent with the religious currents at the time of Henry II’s death; effigies, likewise, have a longer religious history. But what accounts for the adoption of effigy practices at this precise moment? As Woodward notes: “[t]he reasons for [the effigy’s] introduction are unclear but probably relate to the three-month delay in organsing [Edward II’s] funeral. Edward died at Berkeley Castle on 21 September but was not buried in Gloucester Cathedral until 20 December. Medieval embalming techniques were insufficiently skilled to keep the body fresh for that length of time” (66). To be clear, a funeral effigy and a tomb effigy could have been, but were not always, one and the same. Whereas the tombs of many royals and notable religious figures had long included an effigy, the use of an effigy in the funeral procession was indeed something new. Unlike the tomb effigy which, like the busts of antiquity, aspired to partial and commemorative verisimilitude, the funeral effigy served as a complete simulacrum. The funeral effigy was not a representation, but a copy. The funeral procession, from this point on, no longer showcased the unconcealed or concealed body, but instead the effigy. The effigy became the central object of the procession, with scant attention paid the body proper. Indeed, most procession increasingly lead with a highly adorned effigy and concluded with the unembellished coffin that housed the bare body. The unusual use of an effigy in the funeral procession of Edward II, which seemed more a matter of happenstance and a function of necessity, nonetheless established a new and long-lasting tradition. As Woodward again points out, “Edward III was buried within two weeks of his death and thus public display of his corpse was possible but nevertheless an effigy was made” (66). This practice would persist until the time of James I.
The King's Two Bodies: The Paradox of Monarchy and Popular Sovereignty
Although Kantorowicz believes this practice would only make sense in the context of a pre-existing juridial concept of the so-called 'King's Two Bodies,' it may well be that this discourse on sovereignty was thrust upon the effigy. Kantorowicz's genealogy of embodied sovereignty, wherein the king is the unification of the sovereign royal body and sovereign body politic...
“No matter how we may wish to explain the introduction of the effigy in 1327, with the funeral of Edward II there begins, to our knowledge, the custom of placing on top of the coffin the ‘roiall representation’ or ‘personage,’ a figure or image ad similitudinem regis, which—made of wood or of leather padded with bombast and covered with plaster—was dressed in the coronation garments or, later on, in the parliamentary robe. The effigy displayed the insignia of sovereignty: on the head of the image (worked apparently since Henry VII after the death mask) there was the crown, while the artificial hand held orb and scepter. Wherever the circumstances were not to the contrary, the effigies were henceforth used at the burials of royalty: enclosed in the coffin of lead, which itself was encased in a casket of wood, there rested the corpse of the king, his mortal and normally visible—though now invisible—body natural; whereas his normally invisible body politic was on this occasion visibly displayed by the effigy in its pompous regalia: a persona ficta—the effigy—impersonating a persona ficta—the Dignitas” (Kantorowicz, 420-421)
The King is dead! Long live the King!
“We should not forget that the uncanny juxtapostion of a decaying corpse and an immortal Dignity as diplayed by the sepulchral monuments, or the sharp dichotomy of the lugubrious funeral train surrouding the corpse and the triumphant float of an effigy-dummy wrapped in regalia, was fostered, after all, in the same ground, came from the same world of thought and sentiment, evolved in the same intellectual climate, in which the juridical tenets concerning the ‘King’s two Bodies’ achieved their final formulation. In both instances, there was a body mortal, God-made and therefore ‘subject to all Infirmities that come by Nature or Accident,’ set against another body, man-made and therefore immortal, which is ‘utterly void of Infancy and old Age and other Defects and Imbecilities’” (436).
The Politics and Performance of Ascension
"[I]n the Middle Ages the king was buried with his crown and regalia, or copies thereof; now, however, he was naked or in his winding sheet, and he came to heaven as a poor wretch, whereas the regalia were reserved for the effigy, the true beater of royal glory and the symbol of a Dignity 'which never dies'" (424).
From Embodied Sovereignty to Constitutionalism
1625—Constitutional Monarchy: The decoupling of the head of state and the head of government
Better Dead: Communist Embalming
Although the creation of effigies to materially hold the "body politic" of the deceased monarch fell from active practice with the rise of Constitutionalism in Western Europe, this mode of representation found new life in the attempts of the young Bolshevik government to establish a firm basis for legitimate sovereignty. Although historical materialism would seem to be fundamentally at odds with the fetishization intrinsic to the creation of royal effigies- especially since the two institutions which necessitated and explained the practice, monarchy and the Christian concept of transubstantiation, were violently rejected by the Communists (quite literally, as the corpses of the Romanovs and countless Orthodox churches attest). Armed with cutting edge scientific techniques, however, the Bolsheviks did not create likenesses of their fallen leaders in order to preserve the continuity of the body politic- instead, they preserved the leader's body as an undying vessel for sovereign power. The embalming and display of particularly important party members in Mausoleums was a procedure unique to Communist countries in the 20th century, and even within these countries was typically not repeated following the preservation of the founding leader (the exception being Stalin, who was nonetheless rather unceremoniously removed from the Red Square Mausoleum in the aftermath of Nikita Khrushchev's speech denouncing his rule).
On January 20, 1924 Vladimir Illich Lenin died. He was already dead but not yet alive.
Lenin's death is generally agreed to have been caused by calluses formed around the remnants of a would-be assassin's bullet (fired by Revolutionary Socialist Fanya Kaplan), which did not immediately kill him on August 30th, 1918 when the shot was fired (as Kaplan surely had hoped)but rather caused a slow demise from advanced atherosclerosis.
On August 30th, 1918 Vladimir Illich Lenin was shot to death. He just didn't know it yet.
By 1921, Lenin was suffering from debilitating migraines, and in 1922 he suffered his first stroke. Later that year, suffering daily attacks, Lenin removed himself from the political scene despite the festering power struggle between Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin. In 1923 he attempted to weigh in on the side of Trotsky, but had been outmaneuvered by Stalin who forbid Lenin outside visitors or communication.
In December of 1920, Lenin died politically. He took Trotsky and millions of Russians with him.
This political excommunication was quickly followed by another stroke, which robbed Lenin the facilities of speech as well as a great deal of his memory and bodily control.
In December of 1920, half of Lenin's brain died. His body survived, but did he?
On October 19th, 1923 members of the Politburo meet in the Kremlin to discuss possible funeral plans- it was at this meeting that Stalin is purported to have first raised the possibility of preserving Lenin's body, an idea to which Trotsky raised strong objections.
On October 19th, 1923 the Kremlin had declared Lenin dead. They also made plans for his life.
On the 20th of January in 1924, his condition having thoroughly deteriorated, Lenin suffered his third and final stroke- he appeared to complain of not being able to see, his temperature raised to a high of 42.3 degrees Celsius, he convulsed with violent seizures, his face turned red and for a minute he seemed like he was trying to sit up. He the suddenly stopped breathing, and his face became a deathly pale.
On January 20th, 1924 Vladimir Illich Lenin died. He quickly became livelier than he had been in years.
More Alive Than the Living
Against Lenin's wishes (he had wanted to be buried next to his mother), and under the watchful eye of Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky (who would found the Cheka, forerunner of the KGB) Lenin's body was preserved using standard embalming techniques (his veins were flushed with a chemical compound) and placed in a temporary Mausoleum. This was done, officially, at the request of the workers and peasants who did not want to part with Lenin. The rudimentary technology would not hold his body for long, and when freezing became unfeasible due to electricity shortages scientists Vladimir Voribiov and Boris Zbarsky successfully created a new method of embalming that involved soaking Lenin's body in a particular chemical bath on a regular basis. It was a baptism that literally gave Lenin's body new life.
First, however, Lenin's brain was removed and taken to St. Petersburg, false eyes were inserted under the eyelids and sewn shut, his mouth was sewn shut, and dark spots on the skin were removed with abrasive chemicals. Lenin's body was made to look as if he were sleeping, not dead. Through science- science!- the Soviets achieved what the Europeans had only dreamed, for the material frailty of the beloved leader was replaced not with a wax simulacrum but with the leader's own body, perfected and immortalized.
A giant hole was blasted into the frozen soil of the Red Square and a giant underground facility was put in place, topped by a pyramid-like granite Mausoleum that bore the simple epigraph: LENIN. The Red Square, like Lenin's head, was hollowed out and refilled with the preservative power of science and enduring power of the state.
The tradition started with Stalin and continued through Gorbachev's rule that spectacles of patriotism (such as military processions) took place upon the Red Square, with the important political figures watching from atop the Mausoleum.
In the performance of Soviet sovereignty, Lenin's corpse became the ultimate prop.
Shortly after the Mausoleum opened to the public, a peasant who was viewing Lenin's body took out a pistol, shot at Lenin's body and then turned the gun on himself. A letter was found on his body decrying the path he saw Russia taking. Fortunately, Lenin was not hurt (although the same could not be said of the peasant, nor- in all probability- his family, friends and acquaintances).
Following a similar instance in which a peasant spat upon and then threw a rock at the glass holding both Lenin and Stalin, measures were taken to protect the corpses from attacks from not only rocks, but guns and explosives as well (it is quite certain that inmates in the Gulags took comfort knowing that Lenin was safe).
During the Second World War, in the face of the oncoming Panzer divisions, Lenin's body was taken by train along with his team of scientists to a facility in Siberia. There his body was maintained with the greatest of care, and those who attended his needs were treated quite well. Fortunately, the war ended and Lenin was able to return to the comfort of his Mausoleum (sadly, the same could not be said of those left behind to defend the city who died of cold, starvation, or German bullets).
There was a saying in Russia that Lenin was more alive than the living. The Politburo ensured that this was true
Death Becomes Them
Its Not Easy Having Green Cuticles
There are no cameras allowed in the Mausoleum. Even cell phones must be checked. One is not allowed to stand still while viewing the body, one must continually move. The honor guard armed with automatic rifles ensures these rules are strictly followed. Lenin's body is to be seen, not inspected.
Lenin's face is waxy, his eyes closed. You can only see his torso, in a simple suit, with his arms laid to his sides- the rest of the body is covered in a black sheet. But if you look closely, you can see the rims of his fingers are green. But you must keep moving, you cannot inspect, you cannot look closely at the mossy decay that defies the pinnacle of Soviet science.
The decay that creeps up Lenin's cuticles is the subtle hiss of the natural process of death that has not stopped despite the years of chemical baths and tender care. It is the traces of Lenin's actual body that were never fully exorcised from the national symbol of strength and unity. In a very literal sense, the rot that remains the constant threat hovering on the edges of Lenin's corpse is the Real hiding in, under and behind the Symbolic. Lenin's body, literally transformed into a Bakhtinian sign, is rigorously contextualized in an attempt to retain control of its meaning, yet the noisy decomposition continually interrupts, evades and creeps into the semiotic process.
Ironically, the green tinge of Lenin's cuticles gives his body an aura of authenticity reportedly lacking in Mao's sallow corpse. As in the funeral processions of the European Royalty that begrudgingly dragged the body of the deceased monarch along with the resplendent and regaled wax effigy, the grotesque materiality of the leader's body in the Soviet Union and its satellites was simultaneously necessary for legitimacy and necessarily fought/marginalized/denied. The pops of organs rupturing and hisses of gases escaping can be chemically paused, but to remove them entirely would be to remove the materiality of the corpse/sign, rendering it ephemeral and inauthentic. The wax effigy was quickly stripped of its regalia once the actual body was interned, and the Mausoleum would quickly disappear if it were discovered that Lenin's body was fake.
Body Doubles and Second Life Lenin
In the complex that is used to dunk Lenin's body in its rejuvenating chemical bath was also an exact replica of the inside of the Mausoleum, along with a number of "biological doubles"- corpses that had similar features as Lenin's. The reason for these complex simulations was the need to test new methods of preservation and to troubleshoot possible developing problems- both procedures too risky to attempt on Lenin’s actual body.
These “body doubles”, often with beards trimmed to match Lenin’s trademark goatee, serve as a standing reserve of corporeal ephemerality upon which the skirmishes against the real are fought before traversing the battlefield of the symbolic that infuses Lenin’s body. Yet these copies of the copy (for Lenin’s body, it must be admitted, is a simulacrum of its former self- one that has significantly improved upon the original) use as their subjectile actual bodies- in life they may have been Ivan Ivanovich, Dmitri Gregorovich or Bob Jones- in death they are Vladimir Illich Lenin, complete with Mausoleum and private chemical bath.
The fight against Lenin’s material decomposition requires his replication, but the power of his legitimacy requires that he remain unique. This paradox haunted not only the bodies of those doomed to be test-Lenins, but also his political successors. Unlike the wax effigies that were mere “way-stations” between sovereigns, Lenin’s body was intended to be an eternal vessel of Soviet power. It was not possible to share this power without diminishing it- a lesson Stalin learned too late. Soviet heads of state could stand on Lenin’s Mausoleum, but they could never truly enter it. This held true in other Communist countries- Mausoleums were solitary affairs.
At the website www.lenin.ru, it is possible (after downloading the requisite add-ons) a virtual tour of Lenin’s Mausoleum. Unlike the actual Mausoleum, there is no long line to wait in, no restrictions on cameras, and no heavily armed soldiers ensuring that you linger too long. In fact, you can linger for as long as you wish, rotating the camera to most conceivable angles (from the perspective of a spectator), and zoom in and out. Lenin’s body is also there digitally reproduced in his eternal slumber.
His cuticles, however, are flesh-colored.
This virtual Lenin has shifted from the symbolic to the imaginary- fully detached from the material subjectile that decays, that holds and holds onto the real, the digital body of Lenin is nothing but simulacrum. The digital Mausoleum is a mirror image of the Mausoleum on Red Square, albeit in a manner diametrically opposed to the test Mausoleum with its fake Lenins. The digital Mausoleum is a replica of the idealized form, devoid of material substance and the decay that accompanies it. The test Mausoleum is present only in and for its dirty, infecting materiality- it takes on the decay and rot of the Red Square Mausoleum without laying claim to any of its symbolic power.
Live and Let Die
Long Live the (youtube video of the ) King!
As we are constantly saturated with virtual images of our leaders, it can be argued that the motivation to see them in person has been lost. The images, recordings, and videos of political leaders are present, even while their body is absent. When the material body of the leader dies, it can be said that as long as their virtual image survives, their legitimacy is still present. In our media environment, death is not an end, as everything is recorded and dispersed throughout the media, and nothing disappears. “Our bodies know fatigue and finitude, but our effigies once recorded, can circulate through media systems indefinitely, across the wastes of space and time.” (Speaking Into Thin Air, Peters, 140) As opposed to royal effigies, one could say that presently we have media effigies. If one were to look at the invention of the Phonograph, it is possible to see that the original intention of this technology was to preserve the voices and the messages of the political leaders, and to transmit them to posterity. This has resulted in the presence of media effigies, and technologies that preserve traces of subjectivity. “But death (knowledge of mortality) is the ultimate condition of cultural creativity as such. It makes permanence into a task, into an urgent task, into a paramount task – and so it makes culture, that huge and never stopping factory of permanence.” (Mortality, Immortality, and Other Life Strategies, Bauman, p. 4) As Lenin’s body was embalmed for propaganda purposes in order to gain populist support for communism, images and videos of Reagan that circulated throughout the media can be seen serving a similar purpose.
Live and Let Live
Chryonics is strategy of literally avoiding the deterioration of the individual. It is a strategy of avoiding death by preserving organs in a non frozen vitrious state. (patent, 4559298) A Baumen says that the first activity of culture is survival, and expansion of the boundaries of space and time in order to push back the moment of death, Chryonics is a method that brings this notion from the realm of the virtual to the actual. The purpose of chryonics is to suspend the moment of death to a point in the future, where the solution for whatever caused the body to die would be known. As a method for preserving organs, chryonics differs from embalming because its purpose is not to preserve the exterior body for the purpose of representation. "Cryonics leaves a person at least some chance. The only alternative is decay and decomposition, just a corpse and no hope," says a person who opted to be chryonically preserved. (The Guardian (London) - Final Edition, February 14, 2008 Thursday, Guardian Technology Pages; Pg. 1)While the embalmed body exists as a representation, what has died is subjectivity. “For a few centuries now, death stopped being the entry into another phase of being which it once was; death has been reduced to an exit pure and simple, a moment of cessation, an end to all purpose and planning. Death is now the thoroughly private ending of that thoroughly private affair we call life.” (Bauman, 130) People who opt to use chryonics are concerned with suspending the death of their subjectivity and identity. Chryonics is an attempt to preserve the vital organs, and in many cases, people opt to only preserve the brain. “For this money a client's head will be separated from the body, bled, filled with antifreeze, and placed into a thermos where it will wait until it can be revived and reconnected with a cloned body, a cyborg or a donor. No one knows the resurrection date, and this is why cryonics has been banned in Japan and the EU. Russians have more freedom in choosing an interment option.” (New York Times 2006: Russians Search for Eternal Life) Moscow News (Russia), June 30, 2006, SOCIETY; No. 24, 1822 words, By Yelena Komarova The Moscow News) “Many cryonicists opt to preserve only their heads, hoping for revival technology good enough to give them new, younger bodies. However, there are not even animal experiments to bolster the idea. Nobody has yet frozen and revived any mammal.” (Guardian: The Guardian (London) - Final Edition, February 14, 2008 Thursday, Guardian Technology Pages; Pg. 1)
Science will Save Us!
Embalming has Christian origins, where the spirit remains in the corpse. The new religion is a faith in technology and a “cult of the individual.” One obvious shift that has taken place is the notion of what it means to be dead. Although this varies from culture to culture, after the enlightenment, people began to see death in a secular light. For the first time, death was seen as an absolute absence. They did not fear the punishment of what would happen to them after death, rather the nothingness that constitutes death. In Christianity, death was looked at as a different state of being. In Sheskin’s book “Chryonics” there is a case study of one of the first people who opted to be chryonically frozen. The discussion of the Nelson case shows that the intention was for the body to be kept in s frozen state for centuries until medical science evolved techniques to repair the body and bring it back to life. The mother of Nelson saw no religious or moral problem as religion dealt with “issues of the soul and not with the flesh.” ( 10) “My son had a great vision of what science would do in the future, and he wanted to be a part of it. He had a great belief in the future of science, and if there is even the slightest chance that it might help him or someone else, hen we have nothing to lose and everything to gain.” (11) (Sheskin, Chryonics) As people used to look to religion for answers about what happens to the soul after death, people who opt to be preserved, have placed their faith in technology and science, as that which will save them. Chryonics is an example of Durkheim’s concept of the “cult of the individual.” “In modern society, as other beliefs and practices become less and less religions in character, the idea of the worth and dignity of the individual emerges as a religion object or ideal.” Durkheim's "Cult of the Individual" and the Moral Reconstitution of Society, by Charles E. MarskeSociological Theory © 1987 John Wiley & Sons. Chryonics can also be seen as a privatized view of the “immortality of the nation.” Instead of the nation living on, the individual can now be immortal.yeh
Binski, Paul. Medieval Death: Ritual and Representation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996.
Chamberlain, Andrew T. and Michael Parker Pearson. Earthly Remains: The History and Science of Preserved Human Bodies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Daniell, Christopher. Death and Burial in Medieval England 1066-1550. London: Routledge, 1997.
Kantorowicz, Ernst H. The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.
Woodward, Jennifer. The Theatre of Death: The Ritual Management of Royal Funerals in Renaissance England 1570-1625. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1997.