Sources:  _The Horror in the Museum_, Arkham; _The Horror in the Museum_,
Carroll and Graf.

Synopsis:  The story centers around a basement wax museum in London.  Its
owner, Mr. Rogers, fills his collection with murderers and the gods of yore.
His friend, Stephen Jones, doubts Rogers' claims of esoteric knowledge, and
is shocked to discover that he has apparently killed a dog.  Rogers shows
Jones pictures in an attempt to prove to him that he has retrieved a being
known as Rhan-Tegoth from Alaska.  In return for Rogers' promise to stop
being so morbid, he agrees to stay in the wax museum for a night.
Predictably, Rogers attacks him, but Jones breaks free and ties him up.
Rogers screams that Rhan-Tegoth must be fed, and reveals that his statues are
actually people covered in wax. When something comes up from below and
batters down a huge wooden door, Jones flees the scene.  Weeks later, he
returns to the place to find that Rogers has vanished and that Rogers'
servant, Orabona, has prepared a new exhibit of Rhan-Tegoth and his sacrifice
- who turns out to be Rogers.

Comments:  This particular story didn't impress me much.  It seems too filled
with hyperbole and implausible situations - why does Jones consent to remain
in the museum for the night when he knows Rogers is a sadistic brute?  why
don't those human/wax statues start rotting? - and for once I'm tempted to go
along with Joshi and Murray's theory that this is more a parody than anything
else. Since Lovecraft set the tale in London - a place that he never visited
- it lacks even the local color which brightens many of his tales.

"Horror" was another "revision" piece written for Lovecraft's client Hazel
Heald.  According to a letter to Richard Ely Morse (IV:229), Lovecraft threw
out Heald's synopsis and wrote all of the story himself - after which he
turned around and gave it to her to sell.  Joshi maintains that the lurid
matter in which Lovecraft describes the tale in one of his (unpublished)
letters shows how ludicrous he knew the tale was.

My only interesting thought with regard to this story comes from looking at
it as an individual story separate from the rest, rather than looking at it
as part of a vaster Mythos.  One detail that is often overlooked is when
"Rogers would lead his guest to one of the hideous blasphemies in the
screened-off alcove and point out features difficult to reconcile with even
the finest human craftsmanship" (Arkham edition, p. 218).  Could it be that
these gods are actually real, being kept in the basement of a back-street
building in London in a manner reminiscent of Dunsany's Shop on Go-By Street?

As for those gods, they include such beings as Cthulhu, Tsathoggua (Smith),
and Chaugnar Faugn (Long).  New elements include the monstrous creature
Gnoph-Keh, Yog-Sothoth's form as a cluster of iridescent globes - and of
course, Rhan-Tegoth.

Once again, we've got chat on Dalnet channel #cthulhu this Sunday at 5.  See
everyone there!

Yrs.,

Daniel

Yrs.,

Daniel Harms
http://members.tripod.com/~danharms/

It is very difficult to consider this tale as seperate from the rest of
Lovecraft's Mythos.  After all, as you mentioned, Roger's does show his
quests around to all of the Gods he has on display.  It's a veritable
roll call of who's who in the Cthulhu Myhos.  Roger's could have named
his museum the _Exposition Cthulhiana_. [:

I am inclined to agree with you regarding the Dunsanian influence in
this tale; however, I don't think that Lovecraft intended for the reader
to interpret these images as the actual deities.  Instead, I think
Lovecraft was trying to suggest that sculptures represented the finest
_inhuman_ craftsmanship.  At least, that is how I have always read the
sentence in question.

Regards and Best Wishes,

Regards and Best Wishes,

Unless, of course, Rogers has his facts wrong. Or this isn't really a "Mythos"
story (again I say that Lovecraft wasn't writing a coherent "mythos".)

      My justification for this separation is twofold.  First, when we
get down to it, there's no overwhelming reason why we must consider all
Cthulhu Mythos stories as a group.  Any story might be assigned to a
number of categories (i.e. horror stories, stories set in London, stories
involving wax museums) purely based on what the categorizer desired.  As
such, there is no inherent reason why this story must be included in this
category, or that it cannot be read without taking the other stories in
that artificial category into account.

     For example, yesterday I was reading an essay by an individual who
berated a Lovecraft scholar for not using material in stories
by Carter and Derleth to explain Lovecraft's fiction.  I am not
unopposed to doing so (I'm one of the few people who actually considers
some fiction to be literary criticism), but the author was missing
the fact that there's no reason why anyone absolutely _must_ consider
the works of other authors in examining Lovecraft's stories (especially
when writing an article about "XXX in Lovecraft").  Literary
critics often place boundaries on what's important, and to some degree
these distinctions are arbitrary.  I merely have drawn in my boundaries
considerably here.

     Second, Lovecraft's mythology is so diffuse and contradictory that
our decision as to what may be true is to some degree questionable.
There's no particular reason to adopt one story as being the correct
version of events ("The Call of Cthulhu"), save for Lovecraft's and our
own preferences.  Perhaps Johansen was mistaken about what he'd seen,
and Cthulhu is actually being kept in a basement wax museum in London.
There's no way we can say that one or the other is _right_ (though we
can argue as to probabilities, and whether evidence in the other stories
supports or contradicts this).

Yrs.,

Daniel Harms
http://members.tripod.com/~danharms/

Perhaps I should have stated myself a bit more clearly.  Although it is
very difficult to critically examine "The Horror in the Museum" as a
story seperate from the rest of Lovecraft's Mythos, it is by no means
impossible.

I would imagine that the difficulty involved stems from the fact that
Lovecraft did refer to other tales in this work.  One can hardly be
expected to read "about that ruined city in Indo-China where the
Tcho-Tchos lived" (HM, 221) without being reminded of Derleth and
Schorer's "Lair of the Star-Spawn."  Perhaps, the only individuals truly
capable of looking at this tale as seperate from the rest of the mythos
would be those who are completely unfamiliar with Lovecraft and his
artificial mythology.

In any event, following your suggestion, I did re-read the story.  I
tried very hard to view this tale solely as a single piece, completely
unconnected to the writer and his other works.  It was a struggle all
the way.  I do not believe I was entirely successful.

I've just finished reading Burleson's _Lovecraft: Disturbing the
Universe_, so thoughts similar to the following have been bouncing about
in my mind.  Consider the fact that everyone who reads "The Horror in
the Museum" will interpret this tale in light of his or her memories and
experiences.  The creation of the story becomes a collaborative effort
between the author and the reader.  Since I have been exposed to large
quantities Lovecraftian material, I'm naturally inclined to read the
story as a part of a vast cosmic drama.  The tale simply refuses to be
confined between pages 215 and 241.

Of course, personal experience can alter a story in a manner never
envisioned by the author.  One of the things that struck me about the
tale was the name of the protagonist, Stephen Jones.  Now, I know
perfectly well that Lovecraft was not writing about the editor of
_Shadows Over Innsmouth_ and _Horror: 100 Best Books_; however, that is
the face I visualized when I re-read "The Horror in the Museum."

Regarding the possability that Johansen was mistaken,  I have no problem
with this.  Personally, I think that the importance of continuity has
been vastly overated.  After all, there are plenty of contradictions and
continuity errors in actually mythologies.

I suspect that I'm one of the few people who was not the least bit
concerned when Derleth had R'lyeh appear in the Atlantic.  In fact, I
felt it was one of the few truly clever elements Derleth added to the
Mythos.  After all, R'lyeh is not exactly normal.  Why should it always
appear in the same place every time.  

So to return to your suggestion, that Cthulhu resides in the basement of
a London wax museum, It sounds fine to me.  In fact, I'll go one better.
Cthulhu, an entity who is simply beyond our frail human comprehension,
exisits simultaneously in a London wax museum and at R'lyeh (which might
be found eithier in the Atlantic or the Pacific).  

By the by, the sentence you cited in your initial post supports the
theory of inhuman artists.  "Rogers would lead his guest to one of the
hideous blasphemies in the screened-off alcove and point out features
difficult to reconcile with even the finest human craftsmanship" (HM,
218).

Notice how Lovecraft tossed in the word human.  It was not necessary.
One could read the sentence fine without the word.  The only reason the
word is there is to suggest that the opposite might be the truth - an
inhuman craftsman.  At least, that is what I think Lovecraft was trying
to suggest.

Regards and Best Wishes,

Several people have already asked about the historic characters mentioned
at the start of the story as being depicted in the museum.  Here are my
own brief biographies of each:

   Henri Desire Landru (1870-1922):  Between 1915 and 1919 he murdered 10
      of his wives and burned their bodies in his stove.
   Dr. Hawley Harvey Crippen (1862-1910):  The good doctor killed his wife
      and fled with his mistress to the United States, where he was
      captured as he arrived.
   Madame Demers (?):  I haven't a clue.  I spent _hours_ looking for
      information on Demers and found nothing.  I'm beginning to suspect
      that she was either a creation of Lovecraft or a typo.  Note that
      the original autograph and typed manuscripts for "The Horror in the
      Museum" don't exist, so it's possible that an early editor couldn't
      read Lovecraft's handwriting.
   David Rizzio (1533-1566):  A favorite of Mary, Queen of Scots, he
      arranged her marriage with Lord Darnley.  The latter was jealous of
      Rizzio's influence over Mary, and had Rizzio murdered before her.
   Lady Jane Grey (1537-1554):  Through the machinations of her father,
      she was forced to marry Lord Guildford Dudley, whose father, the
      duke of Northumberland, convinced King Edward VI to name Jane as his
      successor instead of Edward's sister, Mary.  Got all that?  She
      became Queen of England at the age of fifteen upon the death of
      Edward, but after only nine days was forced to abdicate to Mary.  
      She was convicted of treason, imprisoned in the Tower of London, and
      later beheaded -- the victim of the scheming of her father and other
      power-hungry nobles.
   Gilles de Rais (1404-1440) -- Also spelled Gilles de _Retz_, he was a
      nobleman who fought beside Joan of Arc at Orleans.  A satanist who
      participated in "infamous orgies", he was said to have abused and
      killed over _150_ children.  Charles Perrault's "Blue Beard" is
      based on de Rais' exploits.  Lovecraft also mentions him in "The
      Rats in the Walls".
   Donatien-Alphonse-Francois, Marquis de Sade (1740-1814):  De Sade was
      imprisoned for his sexual perversions, spending over 27 years in
      prison.  During much of this time he wrote a number of obscene
      novels, eventually dying insane.  Like de Rais, de Sade is also
      mentioned in "The Rats in the Walls".

There are a number of monstrous entities that here make their appearance
in Lovecraft's fiction for the first (and only) time.  Obviously, there's
Rhan-Tegoth, the central creature of the tale.  There's also Chaugnar
Faugn, the creation of Frank Belknap Long, which was first mentioned in
Long's "The Horror from the Hills".  There's also Gnoph-keh, which is
described as a single entity here, but which appeared to be a race of
beings ("Gnophkehs") in "Polaris" (1918), "The Dream-Quest of Unknown
Kadath" (1927), and "The Mound" (1930).  In addition, there are the
Tcho-Tchos, a creation of August Derleth that was first used in his
collaboration with Mark Schorer, "The Lair of the Star-Spawn" -- a title
that Lovecraft himself suggested.  Lovecraft also mentions the Tcho-Tchos
briefly in "The Shadow Out of Time".

A number of people have already mentioned in this thread that they believe
the story implies that the effigies of Lovecraftian entites in Rogers'
museum are real.  I believe that there's an indication that _some_ of the
effigies in the alcove are real, but that many are not.  Here are a few
quotes that support my view:

   But the worst were wholly original with Rogers, and represented shapes
   which no tale of antiquity had ever dared to suggest.  (p. 216)

   Heedless of ridicule, he was trying to imply that not all of these
   daemoniac abnormalities were artificial.  (p. 218)

      Surviving elder gods -- nameless sacrifices -- the other than
   artificial nature of some of the alcove horrors -- all the usual
   boasts, but uttered in a tone of peculiarly increasing confidence.  
   (p. 220)

   Curious, in view of Rogers' claim that his figures were not all
   artificial -- indeed, it was probably that claim which made one's
   imagination conjure up the olfactory suspicion.  (p. 229)

As far as I'm concerned, the implication of the above is that _some_ of
the figures in the waxwork museum are real.  And I believe that those that
are real are the ones that "were wholly original with Rogers", not the
ones that included Tsathoggua, Cthulhu, and Chaugnar Faugn.

Several artists are also mentioned here, as they are in "Pickman's Model".
Again we see Sidney Sime, Gustave Dore, and Clark Ashton Smith, as well as
a new name, Blatschka.  Sidney Sime (1867-1941) is well-known for his
illustrations of Lord Dunsany's work and, as Daniel Harms pointed out,
this story may be a slight tip-of-the hat to Dunsany's "A Shop in Go-by
Street".  Gustave Dore (1832-1883) did spectactular illustrations for a
variety of written works, including the Bible, Coleridge's _The Rime of
the Ancient Mariner_, Dante's _The Divine Comedy_, Milton's _Paradise
Lost_, Rabelais' _Gargantua and Pantagruel_, and even Edgar Allan Poe's
"The Raven".  Clark Ashton Smith (1893-1961) was, of course, one of
Lovecraft's correspondents and an accomplished artist.  But the
Blatschkas, perhaps like Madame Demers, appear to be a creation of
Lovecraft's.

There's no New England atmosphere here for me to make my usual comments
on, although there is some _Old_ England atmosphere.  Southwark Street is
on the south side of the Thames and runs between Blackfriars Road and
Borough High Street.  Jones' home is in Portland Place, which is about a
half mile south of Regent's Park.  Rogers lives on Walworth Road, which is
about a mile south of the Southwark area.  Through what means Lovecraft
picked these locations or just why he placed Rogers' museum in Southwark
-- or London, for that matter -- is anyone's guess.

Immediately north of Southwark Street, off of Great Guildford Street, is a
short avenue called Zoar Street.  Although this street doesn't appear in
the story, the word "Zoar" certainly has been popping up lately in my
discussions on Lovecraft.  For some reason, Daniel Harms asked me about it
last weekend on IRC.  First, there's the Zoar mentioned in the twelfth
sonnet of "Fungi From Yuggoth", "The Howler":

   They told me not to take the Briggs' Hill path
   That used to be the highroad through to Zoar,
   For Goody Watkins, hanged in seventeen-four
   Had left a certain monstrous aftermath.

Then, there's Lake Zoar in Connecticut which is on the _Housatonic_ River
between Danbury and Waterbury.  Also, there's the biblical Zoar, which was
the town that Lot fled to from Sodom.  This is all purely coincidental, of
course, but it certainly is peculiar that I've been encountering it so
much in the last couple of weeks...

I'll see everyone on IRC this Sunday afternoon/evening!

Steven

      The Blaschkas were a pair of German brothers who created a set of
glass flowers for Harvard University.  Other modelling materials were too
crude, and living specimens were not at bloom at all times of the year.
Therefore, this set of glass plants were commissioned.  You can find
out more here:

http://www.mcnh.harvard.edu/exhibitions/glassflowers.html

Yrs.,

Daniel Harms
http://members.tripod.com/~danharms/

      I don't get Donovan.  He actually wants me to correct him on this
   newsgroup, knowing full well that I'll mock and deride him from one end
   of Usenet to another.  But here goes.

      The Blaschkas were a pair of German brothers who created a set of
   glass flowers for Harvard University.  Other modelling materials were
   too crude, and living specimens were not at bloom at all times of the
   year. Therefore, this set of glass plants were commissioned.  You can
   find out more here:

   http://www.mcnh.harvard.edu/exhibitions/glassflowers.html

You...BASTARD!  How _dare_ you mock and deride me so callously!  I haven't
been mocked and derided so harshly since...since...  I've _never_ been
mocked and derided like this before!!!

By the way, I have a little tip for you when you're mercilessly mocking
and deriding me in the future:  get your facts straight, bucko.  Leopold
and Rudolph Blaschka were father and son, not brothers.  Also, I've yet to
find any information definitively stating that they were German, despite
the fact that their studio was in Dresden.  _Perhaps_ they were Austrian.

[I wanted Daniel to correct me on this one because he was the person who
had discovered Lovecraft's spelling error.  But at least I had covered my
butt by saying that _perhaps_ Lovecraft invented the Bla(t)schkas...]

Another post to usenet without any truly helpful information, but
that's my 2-cents worth anyway.
--
Alan Peschke
http://lonestar.texas.net/~alandp/shunned/
To reply by email, change "not" to "net".

   Also, I've yet to find any information definitively stating that they
   were German, despite the fact that their studio was in Dresden.  
   _Perhaps_ they were Austrian.

Once again, it's a good thing I said "perhaps".  I looked further into the
page that Daniel pointed to, and I found the following quote:

   The Blaschka family history as jewelers and glassmakers can be traced
   as far back as the 15th century.  By the 19th century, Bohemia was
   known as a world center for glasswork, specializing in glass gemstones
   and beads for jewelry.  These traditions provided the backdrop from
   which Leopold and Rudolph then incorporated the passion for collecting
   and fascination with natural history characteristic of their era
   culminating in this unique and astonishing garden in glass.

Bohemia is now part of Czechoslovakia, so it _appears_ that the Blaschkas
were neither Germans nor Austrians, but Czechs.

"Donovan K. Loucks" <webmas...@hplovecraft.com> wrote:

: "Donovan K. Loucks" <webmas...@hplovecraft.com> wrote:

: >Bohemia is now part of Czechoslovakia

: Hmmm. Czechoslovakia does not longer exist. Nope, it was not eaten by
: Cthulhu, it just got split. 8)

  So that Bohemia is now the western portion of the Czech Republic.  
The majority of Bohemians and the neighboring Moravians have been ethnic
Czech's since the dark ages, so that makes the Blaschkas Czechs,
probably.