Category Archives: History

Greatly Beloved Were You to Me

“When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.” 

—1 Samuel 18:1

There are certain images that stay with us—not just as works of art, but as moments of recognition.

For me, David by Michelangelo has always been one of those images.

I still remember the first time I saw him in person in Florence. I had just arrived, and visiting the Galleria dell’Accademia was one of the very first things I did. I walked into that long gallery, and there he was—at the end, illuminated, larger than life. I remember looking up with a kind of awe that felt both artistic and deeply personal. It wasn’t just the mastery of the sculpture—it was presence. Humanity carved into stone.

When I first started this blog, I chose David and Me by Steve Walker as my avatar. It reminded me of myself the first time I stood before David—looking up, searching, captivated. Back then, I even physically resembled the figure in Walker’s painting. I’m older now. It has been over twenty years since I last visited Florence, and I’ve changed in ways I could not have imagined then.

But the awe remains.

And because of that fascination with David, I have always found myself drawn not only to the figure in marble, but to the story in scripture—to the love between David and Jonathan.

“Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul.”—1 Samuel 18:3

From the very beginning, their relationship is described in language that is intimate, binding, and profound. Their souls are knit together. Their love is named openly. A covenant is made—not out of obligation, but out of love.

“Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life.”—1 Samuel 20:17

This is not casual affection. This is not distant loyalty. This is a love that insists on being spoken, reaffirmed, and held fast even in the face of danger.

“They kissed each other, and wept with each other; David wept the more.”—1 Samuel 20:41

There is tenderness here. Physical closeness. Emotional vulnerability. Grief shared without restraint.

And then, in the end, there is lament.

“I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”—2 Samuel 1:26

Few passages in scripture speak of love with such intensity. So what are we to make of it? Was this admiration? A deep and abiding friendship?

Was it something like the bond between Achilles and Patroclus, or between Alexander the Great and Hephaestion—relationships that have long existed in that space between friendship and something more?

Or could it have been a love that was intimate in ways the text does not fully define, but does not deny?

The truth is, we will never know with certainty.

But we can pay attention to the language. The Hebrew does not shy away from words of love, of binding, of covenant. It does not diminish their connection. And yet, across centuries, translations and interpretations have often been shaped by the assumptions and discomforts of those doing the translating.

Some render the relationship in ways that feel safer—contained, strictly platonic. Others allow the emotional depth to remain, even if they stop short of naming it outright.

Which raises a different question: not only what was their relationship, but what are we willing to see in it?

For many LGBTQ+ people of faith, this story resonates deeply.

We know what it is to form bonds that others do not understand. We know what it is to love in ways that are questioned, reinterpreted, or denied.We know what it is to hear our stories explained away.

And yet, here in scripture, the love between David and Jonathan is not erased. It is spoken. It is remembered. It is grieved.

I think about that when I think of David—both the young man of scripture and the figure carved in marble.

Strength and beauty, yes. But also vulnerability. Connection. Love that dares to speak its name, even in a world that may not fully understand it.

Maybe we don’t need to resolve the question of what, exactly, David and Jonathan were to each other. Maybe it is enough to let their story remain open—to allow it to hold possibility.

Because for those of us who have been told that our love has no place in sacred story, even the possibility matters.

Even the words themselves are enough:

Greatly beloved were you to me.


A Day for Fools

📰 Breaking News 📰 

The U.S. president signed an executive order declaring April 1 as “Donald Trump Day.” It will be a day when no one is allowed to speak a word of truth.

April Fools!

Thank goodness no holiday is being named after him—though, if we’re being honest, I wouldn’t entirely put it past him to try to declare a holiday named after himself. If he did, April 1 would be an appropriate day, since he is the biggest fool of all.

April 1 has always been one of those quietly delightful days—one where the rules loosen just a little, where humor takes center stage, and where we’re all reminded not to take ourselves too seriously.

The origins of April Fool’s Day are a bit of a mystery, but the most widely accepted explanation takes us back to 16th-century Europe. For centuries, many people celebrated the new year not on January 1, but around the end of March, often culminating on April 1. When Charles IX of France reformed the calendar in 1564 and moved the start of the new year to January 1, not everyone got the memo—or chose to follow it. Those who continued celebrating in early April were mocked, teased, and labeled “April fools.”

Over time, those teasing traditions evolved into something more playful. In France, people still celebrate poisson d’avril, or “April fish,” where children try to sneak paper fish onto someone’s back without them noticing. It’s harmless, a little silly, and entirely in the spirit of the day.

There’s also a deeper thread that connects April Fool’s Day to older spring traditions. Across cultures, the arrival of spring has long been associated with unpredictability—weather that can’t make up its mind, seasons shifting in unexpected ways. Festivals like Holi in India or Hilaria in Rome embraced laughter, disguise, and inversion of social norms. In that sense, April Fool’s Day feels like a continuation of something ancient: a moment when the world turns upside down, if only briefly.

Some of the most famous April Fool’s pranks in history are almost works of art in their own right. In 1957, the BBC aired a segment showing Swiss farmers harvesting spaghetti from trees. At the time, spaghetti wasn’t widely familiar in Britain, and many viewers believed it. Some even called in asking how they could grow their own spaghetti trees. It remains one of the most famous and successful pranks ever broadcast because it was delivered with complete seriousness.

Decades later, the BBC did it again, this time with a nature documentary revealing that penguins could fly. The visuals were convincing, the narration authoritative, and for a moment, it felt just plausible enough to make you wonder.

In 1996, Taco Bell took out full-page ads claiming they had purchased the Liberty Bell and renamed it the “Taco Liberty Bell.” People were outraged—until they realized it was April 1. The company later revealed it was all a joke, and the publicity was priceless.

And in more recent years, Google turned April Fool’s Day into something of an annual tradition, launching elaborate fake products like “Google Nose” or “Gmail Motion.” These pranks were often so well executed that people almost wished they were real.

Here in Vermont, we get an extra helping of fools—just a few months later. In Burlington, the “fools” come out around August 1 for the annual Festival of Fools, when street performers take over Church Street Marketplace and City Hall Park. Jugglers, acrobats, comedians, and buskers fill the streets with laughter and spectacle. It’s not about tricking people so much as delighting them—but it carries the same spirit: a celebration of humor, surprise, and a willingness to be entertained.

What all of these traditions and pranks have in common is not just deception, but delight. The best April Fool’s jokes don’t humiliate; they invite us in on the joke, even if it’s only after the fact.

And maybe that’s why the day endures.

In a world that often feels heavy, serious, and unrelenting, April Fool’s Day offers something rare: permission to laugh, to be a little gullible, to enjoy the absurd. It reminds us that not everything has to be optimized, productive, or even entirely true.

Sometimes, it’s enough to be surprised.

So if someone tries to send you on a ridiculous errand today, or you find yourself momentarily believing something just a little too strange to be real—take it in stride.

After all, we’re all fools today.

And maybe that’s not such a bad thing.

Continue reading

To Be, or Not to Be

Act III, Scene I of Hamlet

By William Shakespeare

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die—to sleep,
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to: ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d. To die, to sleep;
To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there’s the rub:
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause—there’s the respect
That makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th’oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
The pangs of disprized love, the law’s delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th’unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover’d country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action.—Soft you now,
The fair Ophelia!—Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember’d.

About the Soliloquy

From Hamlet by William Shakespeare, this is perhaps the most famous meditation on existence ever written. Its opening line—“To be, or not to be”—has echoed across centuries because it asks a question that is both universal and deeply personal.

Hamlet is not simply pondering life and death in the abstract. He is weighing suffering, endurance, injustice, heartbreak, and uncertainty. He imagines death as sleep—peaceful, even desirable—but immediately complicates that idea: “To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there’s the rub.” It is not death itself that troubles him, but what might come after.

That uncertainty—the “undiscover’d country”—is what keeps him, and us, from choosing escape over endurance.

There is something remarkable about how Hamlet’s question anticipates a later philosophical inquiry. More than half a century after Shakespeare, René Descartes approached existence from a very different angle, asking not whether life is worth living, but how we can know that we exist at all.

Descartes famously wrote:

Cogito, ergo sum — I think, therefore I am.

But this was not simply a clever phrase. In his Meditations, he begins by doubting everything—the senses, the world, even his own body—until he arrives at one undeniable truth:

“I am, I exist—is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.”

Where Hamlet is overwhelmed by existence, Descartes is trying to prove it.

And yet, the two meet in a fascinating way.

Hamlet asks: To be, or not to be?
Descartes answers: You are—because you are thinking.

Hamlet’s struggle is emotional, rooted in suffering and fear of the unknown. Descartes’ is intellectual, rooted in doubt and the search for certainty. But both reveal something essential about being human: that awareness—our ability to think, to question, to reflect—is both what proves our existence and what makes that existence so complicated.

Hamlet cannot escape the burden of consciousness. His thoughts do not free him; they weigh him down, turning action into hesitation. As he says, “Thus conscience does make cowards of us all.”

Descartes, on the other hand, finds stability in thought. Even if everything else is uncertain, the thinking self remains.

Between them lies a truth that feels deeply human:

We exist because we think—but thinking is also what makes existence so difficult.

And yet, we continue.

About the Author

William Shakespeare (1564–1616) is widely regarded as one of the greatest writers in the English language. His works include tragedies such as Hamlet, Macbeth, and King Lear, as well as comedies, histories, and poetry that continue to shape literature, theater, and culture around the world.

Though details of his personal life remain somewhat elusive, Shakespeare’s writing reveals a profound understanding of human nature—our desires, fears, contradictions, and complexities. His characters feel timeless because they grapple with questions we still ask today: Who are we? What does it mean to live well? And how do we face the unknown?

Hamlet stands as one of his most introspective works, offering not just a story of revenge and tragedy, but a deeply philosophical exploration of existence itself.

Sometimes, I miss teaching Shakespeare. Then I remember what it was like to deal with students “learning” Shakespeare—or more accurately, ignoring what I was trying to teach them about Shakespeare—and I remember why I left the high school classroom for the museum world.


The Rise and Fall of Toronto’s Alexander Wood Statue

Yesterday, while reading, I came across a reference that stopped me in my tracks: gay men in Toronto rubbing the bare butt on a statue for luck. As both a gay man and a museum person, that kind of detail lights up every curiosity circuit in my brain. The scene also reminded me of the old military practice of the “short arm inspection”—the venereal disease check that required soldiers to line up and present themselves for examination. Little moments of sexualized institutional history like that have always existed in the margins, half whispered but universally known.

And so it seemed fitting that the statue in question was the Alexander Wood monument that once stood in Toronto’s Church and Wellesley Village—a monument rooted in its own scandal of inspection, accusation, and rumor.

Alexander Wood (1772–1844) was a Scottish merchant and magistrate who became a prominent figure in early Toronto (then York). He served in several civic roles and was involved in shaping the young colony. But today, he’s remembered primarily for a scandal that forever marked his reputation—and later, queer history.

In 1810, a young woman named Miss Bailey claimed she had been sexually assaulted. Her description was vague, but she insisted she could identify the assailant by marks on his genitals.

As a magistrate, Wood investigated the case, questioning several male suspects. Historical accounts state that he personally inspected their genitals to look for corroborating marks.

This highly unusual method sparked gossip and ridicule.

What makes the incident even murkier is that many historians doubt the woman’s existence altogether. Some believe “Magdalena Nagle” may have been invented—either by Wood, his rivals, or the community at large. The absence of solid records fueled speculation in his own time and afterwards.

Regardless, the scandal led to public humiliation and accusations—spoken and unspoken—about Wood’s sexuality. Though never charged with wrongdoing, he fled temporarily to Scotland before quietly returning to his life in Upper Canada.

In 2005, Toronto’s LGBTQ+ community sought to commemorate queer history in public space. Although Wood’s sexual orientation is not documented, many queer historians reclaimed him as a possible queer ancestor—a man punished socially for perceived sexual deviance long before there was a vocabulary to defend himself.

Thus the community commissioned a statue honoring both his life and his place in queer memory.

lThe bronze sculpture, created by Del Newbigging, depicted Wood in early-19th-century attire—not a military uniform, but the formal dress of a gentleman of his era. His pose was confident, with one hand tucked behind him and the other holding a walking stick.

At the base of the statue was a plaque showing an engraved tableau: a young militia soldier with his pants partially lowered, presenting his bare buttocks for Wood’s infamous inspection. That image wasn’t part of the main statue—it was the plaque that made the scandal visually explicit.

And then came the charmingly queer detail: Newbigging openly stated that he modeled the soldier’s butt on the backside of his own partner.

A gift of love, art, and cheeky community pride.

The Village quickly embraced the statue with a sense of humor. Gay men began rubbing the bare butt on the plaque for luck, and as is always the case with bronze, repeated contact polished the metal to a gleaming shine. What started as a joke became a familiar ritual—a flirtatious, communal wink at queer history.

Placed at the entrance of Church and Wellesley, the statue served as a landmark for Toronto’s queer community. It stood in a district deeply associated with LGBTQ+ identity, activism, and resilience, marking the neighborhood with a figure reclaimed from historical shaming.

For many, it symbolized both pride and solidarity—a public monument that didn’t hide the queer interpretation but made it impossible to ignore.

Over time, the statue’s presence became more complicated. Some critiques focused on its campy sexualization or the historical uncertainty of Wood’s queerness. But a more serious criticism emerged:

Alexander Wood served on the Society for Converting and Civilizing the Indians and Propagating the Gospel Among Destitute Settlers in Upper Canada—an organization whose mission and practices were part of the colonial machinery that later contributed to the development of the Indian residential school system in Canada.

For Indigenous activists and allies, Wood’s connection to early assimilationist institutions made him an inappropriate figure for public commemoration. This dimension of his legacy was long overlooked but gained prominence in recent years as Canada confronted the deep harms of residential schools.

The statue thus became not only a queer symbol but also a site of contested memory.

When the site was sold to a condominium developer in 2022, community groups requested that the statue be relocated rather than removed. But issues of ownership, cost, and ongoing controversy complicated the process.

The statue was taken down quietly.

Placed in storage.

And ultimately destroyed—a loss that felt abrupt and painful to those who viewed it as a cornerstone of Village identity.

The Alexander Wood statue existed at the crossroads of queer reclamation, artistic expression, colonial history, and community identity. Its destruction leaves a literal void in the Village streetscape—a reminder that public memory is fragile and often shaped by forces beyond our control.

The polished bronze butt on the plaque may be gone, but the story remains:

of queer history reclaimed, contested, celebrated, and sometimes lost

And maybe that is the nature of queer memory itself—surviving in the stories we continue to tell.


Coded Desire: The Hidden Queer World of J.C. Leyendecker

When we think of early 20th-century American illustration, Norman Rockwell’s name often comes first. But long before Rockwell’s wholesome small-town Americana, there was Joseph Christian Leyendecker—his mentor, idol, and predecessor at The Saturday Evening Post. Leyendecker not only helped shape the golden age of American illustration; he also created some of the most striking, subtly queer imagery ever to appear on mainstream magazine covers in the early 1900s.

Between 1896 and 1950, Leyendecker produced more than 400 magazine covers and countless advertisements for brands like Arrow Collars, Kuppenheimer, and Interwoven Socks. His sharply dressed men, gleaming with confidence and sensuality, set the visual standard for masculine beauty. These “Arrow Collar Men” became the male ideal of their day—elegant, poised, athletic, and perfectly groomed. But beneath their polish lay something quietly radical: Leyendecker’s men gazed at one another—and at us—with desire.

Leyendecker lived most of his adult life with his partner and muse, Charles Beach, who modeled for many of the Arrow Collar ads and became the archetype of masculine allure. Their partnership was both personal and professional, lasting nearly fifty years, and though they lived in an era of rigid moral codes, Leyendecker found ways to encode affection, intimacy, and attraction in his art. The male figures in his paintings—posed with subtle tension, often in pairs—seem to vibrate with a kind of longing rarely seen in commercial art of that time.

His holiday covers for The Saturday Evening Post often featured wholesome domestic scenes, but even there, queer readings emerge: the bachelor trimming his own Christmas tree, the soldier straightening another man’s uniform, or two athletes sharing a private glance. These moments, hidden in plain sight, offered coded expressions of male companionship and tenderness during decades when overt queerness could not be depicted publicly.

After Leyendecker’s death in 1951, much of his reputation was overshadowed by Rockwell, who succeeded him at The Post. Yet in recent years, art historians and LGBTQ+ scholars have reclaimed Leyendecker as one of the most important queer figures in American art. His work reminds us that representation isn’t always loud—it can whisper through brushstrokes, glances, and gestures. In those polished, idealized men, he painted a world where beauty, desire, and love between men could exist—if only in coded form.

Leyendecker’s legacy today is being rediscovered in museum retrospectives and popular culture, from contemporary fashion photography to the animated short Coded: The Hidden Love of J.C. Leyendecker, which explores how he built an entire visual language of queer identity long before such language was socially permissible. His art stands as a testament to resilience and creativity under constraint—a reminder that even in eras of silence, queer artists found ways to make themselves seen.


From Glory to Grief: World War I Poetry and the Meaning of Veterans Day

If I should die, think only this of me:
That there’s some corner of a foreign field
That is for ever England.”
— Rupert Brooke, “The Soldier”

Each year on November 11, we pause to honor the men and women who have served in the armed forces. Known originally as Armistice Day, this date marks the end combat for World War I in 1918, when the guns finally fell silent on the Western Front. What began as a commemoration of peace after “the war to end all wars” evolved into Veterans Day in the United States—an annual moment of gratitude for all who have worn the uniform.

World War I not only reshaped geopolitics and society; it also transformed art and literature. Poetry, in particular, became the most immediate and emotional record of soldiers’ experiences. From the idealism of 1914 to the disillusionment of the trenches, poets captured both the nobility and the horror of modern warfare. Three poems—Rupert Brooke’s “The Soldier,” John McCrae’s “In Flanders Fields,” and Wilfred Owen’s “Dulce et Decorum Est”—trace the arc of changing attitudes among soldiers during the Great War.

The Soldier

By Rupert Brooke

If I should die, think only this of me:
That there’s some corner of a foreign field
That is for ever England. There shall be
In that rich earth a richer dust concealed;
A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware,
Gave, once, her flowers to love, her ways to roam,
A body of England’s, breathing English air,
Washed by the rivers, blest by suns of home.
 
And think, this heart, all evil shed away,
A pulse in the eternal mind, no less
Gives somewhere back the thoughts by England given;
Her sights and sounds; dreams happy as her day;
And laughter, learnt of friends; and gentleness,
In hearts at peace, under an English heaven.

Rupert Brooke’s “The Soldier” (1914) reflects the early optimism of Britain’s entry into the war. Written before he ever reached the front lines, Brooke’s sonnet presents death in battle as noble and redemptive. The poem imagines the fallen soldier as eternally consecrating foreign soil with his English spirit—a vision steeped in idealism and romantic patriotism.

Brooke’s language is pastoral and spiritual: England is “richer dust,” “flowers,” and “laughter.” His tone conveys the belief that sacrifice in service of one’s country was beautiful and pure. Tragically, Brooke never witnessed the grim realities of trench warfare; he died of blood poisoning in 1915 on his way to Gallipoli. For many early in the war, his poems embodied a kind of naïve heroism that would soon fade in the face of unimaginable loss.

In Flanders Fields
By John McCrea

In Flanders fields, the poppies blow
     Between the crosses, row on row,
   That mark our place; and in the sky
   The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
   Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
                          In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
   The torch; be yours to hold it high.
   If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
                            In Flanders fields.

By 1915, the tone of war poetry had begun to darken. Canadian army doctor John McCrae wrote “In Flanders Fields” after presiding over the funeral of a friend who died in battle. The poem’s haunting image of red poppies growing among soldiers’ graves made it one of the most famous pieces of war poetry ever written.

“In Flanders Fields” bridges two worlds: the patriotic call of Brooke’s generation and the emerging sorrow of a war that had already claimed millions. McCrae gives voice to the dead, who urge the living to “take up our quarrel with the foe.” Yet the repetition of poppies and crosses hints at the futility of such endless sacrifice. The poem’s enduring symbol—the poppy—has become a global emblem of remembrance, worn each November to honor veterans and the fallen alike. McCrae himself died of pneumonia in 1918, just months before the war ended.

Dulce et Decorum Est
By Wilfred Owen

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame, all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.

Gas! Gas! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime

Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams before my helpless sight
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin,
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer,
Bitter[note 1] as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,–
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori. 

If Brooke and McCrae wrote from faith and duty, Wilfred Owen wrote from the mud, blood, and gas-filled trenches of the Western Front. His poem “Dulce et Decorum Est” (“It is sweet and fitting [to die for one’s country]”) exposes the brutal truth behind that patriotic ideal. Owen describes exhausted soldiers “bent double, like old beggars under sacks” and a gas attack that leaves a comrade “guttering, choking, drowning.”

By ending the poem with the biting phrase “The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori,” Owen rejects the glorification of war that poets like Brooke once embraced. His work gives a voice to the generation that witnessed industrialized slaughter on a scale never before seen. Owen was killed in action in November 1918—just one week before the Armistice.

During World War I, poetry became both a weapon and a refuge. Soldiers scribbled verses in trenches, hospitals, and letters home, using poetry to process trauma, question authority, and preserve humanity amid chaos. Newspapers published patriotic sonnets beside dispatches from the front, and later, the war poets’ raw testimonies helped shape public memory of the conflict.

The evolution from Brooke’s idealism to Owen’s bitter realism mirrors society’s loss of innocence. Through their words, we witness not just the cost of war, but the courage to speak truth against false glory.

The armistice signed on November 11, 1918, marked not only the end fighting in World War I but also the birth of a day of remembrance. In 1954, the United States renamed Armistice Day as Veterans Day to honor all those who have served, in every war and in peacetime. The poetry of Brooke, McCrae, and Owen reminds us why this day endures—not merely as a celebration of victory, but as a solemn reflection on sacrifice, service, and the cost of freedom.

A century later, these poems still speak across the silence of the graves and trenches. Brooke reminds us of the hope that sends soldiers to battle; McCrae gives us the grief that lingers after; Owen forces us to confront the truth of what war does to the human soul. Together, they form a poetic memorial as powerful as any monument of stone—a reminder that remembrance begins not with ceremony, but with empathy.

So this Veterans Day, as poppies bloom once more in our collective memory, may we honor not only the fallen, but also the living—those who have carried the burdens of service with courage, faith, and love.


From Tun Tavern to Netflix: Celebrating 250 Years of Marines

Miles Heizer as Cameron Cope

November 10, 2025, marks a truly historic milestone—the 250th birthday of the United States Marine Corps. Founded in 1775 at Tun Tavern in Philadelphia, the Marines have stood for courage, discipline, and an unshakable commitment to honor, duty, and brotherhood. Every year on this day, Marines around the world—past and present—celebrate their proud legacy. This year’s celebration carries even greater meaning as a quarter of a millennium of service is recognized.

In honor of that incredible legacy, I recently watched a new Netflix series that brings a very different but equally powerful perspective to the Marine Corps experience: Boots.

Based on the memoir The Pink Marine by Greg Cope White, Boots tells the story of a young gay man who joins the Marines—though, unlike the memoir which is set in the 1970s, the Netflix adaptation takes place in the 1990s, just before the era of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” What unfolds is a deeply moving, funny, and inspiring story about resilience, identity, and belonging.

Max Parker as Sergeant Liam Robert Sullivan

The show stars Miles Heizer and Max Parker, two incredibly gorgeous gay men who both play gay men with honesty and heart. Their chemistry, vulnerability, and courage to portray queer characters in such a traditionally masculine military setting make the series truly special. Heizer brings his signature quiet intensity to the role, while Parker adds authenticity and depth to every scene.

Boots doesn’t just retell a coming-of-age story—it redefines what it means to serve, to find pride in oneself, and to carve out a space in a world that often tries to deny you one. For LGBTQ+ viewers, it’s especially meaningful to see this representation handled with respect, humor, and tenderness.

If you haven’t seen Boots yet, I highly recommend it. It’s beautifully written, well-acted, and emotionally resonant. And what better time to watch it than now—in honor of 250 years of the United States Marine Corps—a reminder that courage comes in many forms, and sometimes the bravest thing a Marine can do is to live truthfully.

Semper Fi—and happy birthday, Marines!

P.S. I have to admit—there’s just something undeniably sexy about Marines. And fun fact: every military man I’ve ever hooked up with has, coincidentally, been a Marine. Go figure.


St. Sebastian: The Beautiful Martyr

Image: Jusepe de Ribera, St. Sebastian, 1651, Museo del Prado, Madrid — rendered in dramatic chiaroscuro, Ribera’s Sebastian is muscular and mortal, his suffering grounded in flesh rather than idealized beauty.

Few figures in Christian art have captivated artists — and viewers — quite like St. Sebastian. The story is simple enough: a Roman soldier and secret Christian, Sebastian was condemned to death for his faith and tied to a post, shot through with arrows by his fellow soldiers. He miraculously survived, only to be executed later by beating. Yet, through centuries of retelling, the tragedy of his martyrdom has transformed into something far more layered — even sensual.

From the Renaissance onward, artists rendered Sebastian’s suffering with remarkable beauty. Painters like Andrea Mantegna, Perugino, and Botticelli turned him into an icon of idealized male youth — strong, nearly nude, his body pierced yet luminous. In later depictions by Guido Reni and El Greco, that same body seems to glow with a kind of erotic spirituality. The saint’s expression — serene, even enraptured — blurs the line between agony and ecstasy.

Image: El Greco, St. Sebastian, c. 1577–79, Cathedral of San Sebastián, Illescas — the saint’s elongated form and upward gaze merge suffering with divine transcendence.
Image: Guido Reni, St. Sebastian, c. 1615, Palazzo Rosso, Genoa — the most famous of Reni’s versions, his Sebastian glows with serene sensuality.

It’s no wonder that Sebastian became, over time, a queer icon — often called the “gay saint.” His imagery offered something radical: a male body displayed with vulnerability, sensuality, and beauty in a religious context. For centuries when expressions of same-sex desire were forbidden, these paintings became coded images of longing. The male form, sanctified through martyrdom, became a vessel for hidden desire.

Twentieth-century artists and writers reclaimed him openly. Yukio Mishima, Derek Jarman, and photographers like Robert Mapplethorpe saw in Sebastian not just the suffering of faith, but the suffering — and resilience — of queer existence itself. His arrows became metaphors for persecution and for the piercing, transformative power of desire.

Image: Kishin Shinoyama, Yukio Mishima as St. Sebastian, 1968 — the novelist and playwright reimagines the saint’s agony through a homoerotic lens of beauty, discipline, and death.
Image: Robert Mapplethorpe, St. Sebastian, 1979 — a modern photographic interpretation that turns suffering into defiant beauty.
Image: Derek Jarman’s film Sebastiane (1976) — the first feature-length film entirely in Latin, reimagining the saint’s story through an overtly homoerotic lens.

There is, after all, a kind of paradoxical holiness in his image: a man struck down yet made radiant; punished yet beautiful; vulnerable yet defiant. Whether we read him as a symbol of endurance, forbidden beauty, or queer faith, St. Sebastian endures as the saint who invites us to see the divine not in denial of the body, but through it.

About St. Sebastian

Feast Day: January 20

Patron of: Soldiers, athletes, archers, and plague victims

Symbol: Arrows, tied tree or post, youthful male figure

St. Sebastian was a Roman officer in the Praetorian Guard who secretly practiced Christianity. When discovered, he was condemned by Emperor Diocletian to be shot with arrows and left for dead. Nursed back to health by the widow Irene, he later confronted the emperor and was beaten to death for his defiance. His legend spread quickly, and his image became a symbol of endurance, courage, and—through art—a timeless meditation on the beauty and vulnerability of the human form.


The Divine Cupbearer: Ganymede in Art and Imagination

Briton RivièreThe Rape of Ganymede, 1879, oil on canvas. Private collection.

In Rivière’s Victorian interpretation, the drama of Ganymede’s abduction becomes a study in beauty and terror. The eagle’s powerful wings engulf the golden-haired youth, whose luminous body and upturned gaze capture the tension between divine rapture and human vulnerability.

A shepherd once stood on the green slopes of Mount Ida, watching his father’s flocks beneath the wide Trojan sky. His hair caught the sunlight, and even the wind seemed to linger around him. High above, the king of the gods looked down and was seized by a longing beyond reason. Taking the form of a mighty eagle, Zeus swept from Olympus, his wings darkening the heavens, and carried the youth Ganymede into the clouds. The people of Troy saw only feathers and light—then nothing. In heaven, the boy awoke amid thunder and gold, offered a cup of nectar to his captor, and became the immortal cupbearer of the gods, beloved of Zeus and eternal in beauty.

In Greek mythology, few mortal youths have been as endlessly reimagined as Ganymede, the beautiful Trojan prince who caught the eye of Zeus himself. The story is simple yet potent: Zeus, enraptured by Ganymede’s beauty, descends in the form of an eagle and carries him off to Olympus to serve as the gods’ cupbearer—and, as the myths gently imply, as the god’s divine beloved. It is a tale that has stirred the imagination for centuries: a mortal elevated to immortality, a human boy desired by a god, beauty taken skyward by power. To artists, poets, and later to those who found themselves drawn to same-sex desire, the myth became a mirror—of longing, transcendence, and the perilous allure of beauty.

A Symbol of Divine Desire

In ancient Greece, Ganymede’s story was not viewed as scandalous but rather idealized as the epitome of male beauty and youthful grace. The myth encapsulated a cultural ideal: that beauty—especially youthful male beauty—was divine in itself. Over time, depictions of Ganymede evolved, reflecting changing attitudes toward love, innocence, and power.

Ganymede in Art Through the Ages

Ganymede pouring Zeus a libation. Attic red figure calyx krater by the Eucharides Painter, c. 490-480 BC. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

The Eucharides Painter’s Ganymede Krater (c. 490–480 BCE)

One of the earliest known depictions of the myth appears on an Attic red-figure calyx krater attributed to the Eucharides Painter, now in the Louvre. The scene shows Zeus, bearded and dignified, reaching toward the beautiful youth, who holds a hoop and a bird—symbols of playfulness and innocence. The moment is not violent but charged with tension: a mortal about to be chosen by a god. Painted during the late Archaic period, when Athenian vase painters often explored themes of beauty and desire between men, it captures the myth’s earliest visual language—not yet abduction, but invitation. This subtle, coded eroticism would echo through centuries of artistic interpretations.

The Abduction of Ganymede, 1st century CE, fresco from Pompeii. Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli.

Roman Frescoes from Pompeii (1st century CE)

Roman artists often delighted in mythic scenes of beauty and motion, and frescoes from Pompeii depict Ganymede as a symbol of youthful perfection. One particularly vivid wall painting shows the eagle swooping in, its talons gently gripping the boy’s thigh—a moment frozen between terror and ecstasy. The ambiguity of consent here fascinated later Renaissance artists, who saw in the myth both danger and divine invitation.

Peter Paul Rubens, The Rape of Ganymede, 1611–1612, oil on panel. Liechtenstein Museum, Vienna.

Rubens’s The Rape of Ganymede (1611–1612)

In Rubens’s dramatic Baroque vision, the story erupts with motion and passion. The muscular eagle bursts upward, wings slicing through the air as Ganymede twists in its grip, his luminous flesh contrasting the dark feathers. Rubens’s title, The Rape of Ganymede, reflects the 17th-century usage of “rape” to mean abduction, yet the erotic charge is unmistakable. His Ganymede is no helpless child but a radiant youth caught between resistance and surrender—a living embodiment of desire wrestled from earth to heaven. The intensity of movement, the clash of power and beauty, make this one of the most sensual and psychologically complex renderings of the myth.

Pierre Laviron, Ganymède Médicis, 1684–1685, marble. Gardens of the Palace of Versailles, France.

Pierre Laviron’s Ganymède Médicis (1684–1685)

Laviron’s sculpture, commissioned for the gardens of Versailles, translates the myth into polished elegance. His Ganymede stands poised and composed, offering a cup to the eagle perched beside him. The Baroque drama of Rubens is replaced by serene theatricality: beauty tamed into courtly decorum. Created under the patronage of Louis XIV, who used classical myth to mirror divine kingship, Laviron’s figure hints at the fine line between power’s affection and possession—between being loved by a god and serving one.

José Álvarez Cubero, Ganymede, 1804, marble. Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando, Madrid.

José Álvarez Cubero’s Ganymede (1804)

Cubero’s Neoclassical marble returns Ganymede to the world of ideal form and measured grace. The youth’s body is sculpted with the purity of Greek statuary—calm, proportioned, untouched by struggle. The eagle looks up to him rather than seizing him, reversing the myth’s hierarchy. For Cubero and his Enlightenment contemporaries, Ganymede embodied beauty elevated by virtue rather than consumed by passion. Desire, in this vision, becomes enlightenment itself.

Bertel Thorvaldsen, Ganymede and the Eagle, 1817, marble. Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen.

Bertel Thorvaldsen’s Ganymede and the Eagle (1817)

Thorvaldsen refined Neoclassical serenity even further. His marble sculpture shows Ganymede standing calmly beside Zeus’s eagle, cup in hand, offering nectar to the god. Here the boy is no longer abducted but accepted—a symbol of beauty at peace with power, devotion intertwined with dignity. For many in the 19th century, this was a way of transforming homoerotic desire into a language of noble aesthetics.

Hans (Jean) Arp, Ganymede, c. 1950s–60s, bronze (various casts). Private collections and galleries.

Hans (Jean) Arp’s Ganymede (c. 1950s–60s)

By the mid-20th century, Ganymede took flight again—not in flesh, but in form. In Arp’s abstract bronze and marble variations titled Ganymede, the myth dissolves into undulating shapes and organic curves, evoking both ascent and embrace. The human figure is no longer literal; it becomes pure motion, spirit, and metamorphosis. Arp’s biomorphic language connects the myth’s essence—beauty transformed, matter lifted toward divinity—to the modern search for unity between body and soul. In this Ganymede, there is no eagle, no Zeus, only the eternal rise of form seeking the divine.

Why Ganymede Endures

What is it about this myth that has captivated artists for millennia? Perhaps it lies in its paradox. Ganymede is both victim and beloved, mortal and divine, powerless yet exalted. The story dances between danger and desire, and between the human wish to be seen and the peril of being too beautiful to ignore. For queer viewers and artists in particular, Ganymede’s ascension to Olympus can be read as a coded allegory of forbidden love—the notion that same-sex desire, long condemned on earth, might find its rightful place among the heavens. The myth becomes not just about abduction, but about transcendence—an elevation of love beyond human judgment.

In art, Ganymede is never only a youth in the talons of an eagle. He is a symbol of longing, transformation, and divine recognition—the mortal who touched eternity through beauty. Across centuries, artists have reimagined his ascent: from Correggio’s soft luminosity to Rubens’s violent ecstasy, from Thorvaldsen’s calm reverence to Arp’s abstract motion. Each generation has remade Ganymede in its own image—sometimes erotic, sometimes spiritual, always yearning. By the time we reach Arp, the boy has dissolved into pure form, his body transfigured into rhythm and curve. The myth that began with the abduction of a shepherd becomes the eternal story of ascent itself: the soul drawn upward by beauty, still rising, forever beyond reach.

I haven’t added an Isabella Pic of the Week in a while, so here’s one for you:


Timeless Fragments: The Male Torso in Art

One of the few times you’ll see pictures of women on my blog, but I felt it was appropriate to use this ad from Equinox Gym in which the nun on the right is drawing the model’s torso.

You can go on Etsy.com and search “male torso” and you’ll come up with hundreds, if not thousands, of works of the male torso. Sculptures, paintings, photographs, and even decorative candles in the shape of a chest all testify to the enduring fascination with this particular part of the human form. The torso has long been a central subject in art because it distills the human body to its essence: strength, sensuality, vulnerability, and ideal proportion. Artists across time and cultures have used the male torso not only to study anatomy but also to express ideals of beauty, divinity, and desire.

 

Red Jasper Torso

 

Male Torso from Mora, Mathura

Ancient Beginnings

One of the oldest surviving examples is the Red Jasper Torso from Harappa, an Indus Valley civilization sculpture dating back over 4,000 years. Despite its small size, it displays a careful attention to musculature and balance. A similar focus on proportion appears in the Male Torso from Mora, Mathura (2nd century CE), which reflects the Indian tradition of combining sensual form with spiritual resonance. Even in antiquity, the torso stood as a shorthand for the power and beauty of the whole body.

Male Torso (Mercury?)
Roman Marble Male Torso
Belvedere Torso
Statue of Meleager (Harvard Art Museum)
Fragmentary statue of Diomedes from the Great Baths of Aquileia, National Archaeological Museum of Aquileia

The Classical Legacy

The Greco-Roman world perfected the torso as an independent art object. A striking example is the Male torso (Mercury?) in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, or the Roman Marble Male Torso (1st century BCE–1st century CE) once auctioned at Christie’s. Both works emphasize muscular structure and the heroic stance, capturing divine strength in a fragment. Most famous of all is the Belvedere Torso (Vatican Museums), a mutilated but monumental fragment that became a touchstone for Renaissance artists. Michelangelo studied it obsessively, and its twisting form influenced the dynamic poses of his Sistine Chapel figures.

Other classical examples show how the torso could embody narrative as well as anatomy. The Statue of Meleager (Harvard Art Museums) presents the hunter hero in a poised yet relaxed stance, the carefully modeled chest and abdomen conveying both strength and elegance. The Fragmentary statue of Diomedes from the Great Baths of Aquileia (National Archaeological Museum of Aquileia) reduces the heroic figure to its torso, yet the carving retains a sense of vitality and forward motion, reminding viewers of the power and drama embodied in the classical male form.

Studies of a Male Torso and Left Leg
Academic Study of a Male Torso
Male Torso by Constantin Brancusi
Male Torso by Fernando Botero

From Study to Modernism

Renaissance and Neoclassical artists often drew the torso as a central exercise in mastering anatomy. Michelangelo’s Studies of a Male Torso and Left Leg (1519–21, Teylers Museum) demonstrate his fascination with musculature and motion, while Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres’s Academic Study of a Male Torso (1801, National Museum, Warsaw) shows the continuation of this tradition into the academies of Europe. By the 20th century, Constantin Brancusi abstracted the form into pure shape in his Male Torso (1917, Cleveland Museum of Art), reducing muscles and bones to flowing simplicity. Later, Fernando Botero reimagined the body on monumental, exaggerated terms with his Male Torso Statue in Buenos Aires—rotund, playful, and commanding.

Male Abs by Mark Ashkennazi
Fire Island Pines, Polaroids: 1975-1983
Derrick Cross by Robert Maplethorpe (National Galleries Scotland)

Torso in Photography

With the advent of photography, the torso remained central to the visual exploration of masculinity. Mark Ashkenazi’s Male Abs turns the torso into an icon of modern fitness culture, a sleek and stylized emblem of desire. In contrast, Tom Bianchi’s Fire Island Pines, Polaroids: 1975–1983 (published 2013) presents torsos in intimate, personal settings. One image in particular, where Bianchi himself appears on the right, captures not just form but community, sensuality, and queer joy. Robert Mapplethorpe’s photograph of Derrick Cross isolates the male torso with sculptural precision, transforming flesh and muscle into a study of form, texture, and shadow that blurs the line between portrait and classical sculpture.

The Shirt by James Casey Lane

 A Universal Fascination

What makes the male torso so timeless? Perhaps it is because the torso is both part and whole. As a fragment, it invites us to imagine what is missing; as a complete subject, it embodies strength, beauty, and vulnerability in one. Sculptors, painters, draftsmen, and photographers alike have returned to it again and again, finding in the lines of shoulders, the arch of ribs, and the rhythm of abdominal muscles a visual poetry that speaks across centuries. Contemporary works such as James Casey Lane’s The Shirt continue this dialogue, blending classical form with modern gesture to remind us that the torso is as much about movement and emotion as it is about anatomy.

From Harappa to Fire Island, the male torso remains an enduring symbol of the human form and its many meanings—divine, erotic, heroic, and profoundly human.