Above The Fire

London

My friend Simon has been art-directing shoots around the rooftops of London, and discovered that you can actually get to the very top of The Monument. Above the ball of fire there’s room for just one person to stand…
visit_london_0091

7 comments on “Above The Fire”

  1. Terrence says:

    Yes, I have known for ages. The center of the coloum is hollow and there is a circular staircase to the top. Not sure I would have my moring cuppa on top though. No place to sit and enjoy the view.

  2. Helen Martin says:

    Right, so this is 202′ away from where the fire started. The Golden Boy of Pye Corner is apparently where it was stopped, according to Wikipedia, but what does a nude boy with his arms crossed have to do with the stopping of the fire? Unless he’s to represent those who lost their homes and belongings?

  3. Helen Martin says:

    Oh, and is that a weather station on the very top? That looks like an anemometer behind Simon’s head.

  4. admin says:

    I seem to recall reading somewhere that the little boy is the symbol of gluttony.

  5. I.A.M. says:

    Perhaps it was a gluttonous oaf who was the start of the fire?

    Please pardon this Colonial’s question, but, given the number of them all over both The City and the city, how in blazes [pardon me again] can you simply refer to “The Monument“?! Which bloody monument?

  6. RobertR says:

    Because it is The Monument to the Great Fire of London – designed by Christopher Wren & Robert Hooke. The first Rebuilding Act, passed in 1669, stipulated that “the better to preserve the memory of this dreadful visitation” – I guess it might have been the first built monument in London to an event, rather than to an individual, or anything religious – so became the one and only Monument.

    As for the naked little boy with crossed arms, he is “This Boy is in Memmory Put up for the late FIRE of LONDON Occasion’d by the Sin of Gluttony.” And used to be on the front of The Fortune of War pub – where allegedly the fire stopped, which crops up in Thackery’s ‘Vanity Fair’ and if it still existed would have been a great addition to ‘The Victoria Vanishes’ (in particular as it was used by resurrectionists for the corpses found in the Thames.)

  7. Helen Martin says:

    Yes, I read about the sin of gluttony and this being in ‘memmory’ of that, but I don’t get the symbolism. He’s not even a particularly fat child. Of course it was nonsense, anyway, unless the baker in Pudding Lane was baking overly rich desserts or fruitcake. This is like the use of the term ‘John Company” for the East India Company, echoed in Jan Company used by the Dutch and all I get is “it’s just a nickname”. But why John rather than Tom, Dick, or Harry? Ah well, more research (on both these topics) is called for. And thanks for the Vanity Fair reference. I should go back and reread it.

Comments are closed.