THE ANTIQUARIAN: William IX of Aquitaine & Dangerosa

Now primarily known as the grandfather of the celebrated Queen of England, Eleanor of Aquitaine, William IX was the son of Duke William VIII of Aquitaine and Audearde of Burgundy.  Described by the writer Alison Weir as intelligent, gifted, artistic and idealistic, he was infamous for an “insatiable thirst for sensual passion and adventure” (Weir, 9).  Historians consider him the first Troubadour and his poems were both erotic and often blasphemous (Weir, 9).  Though his poetry offended the sensibilities of the Church, they also extolled the virtues of women and helped establish the concept of courtly love, creating the codes of courtesy, chivalry, and gentlemanly conduct that permeated European culture for centuries afterward (Weir, 9).  Flamboyant and daring, William IX referred to himself as “Duke of the Entire Monarchy of the Aquitanians” (Weir, 9).  His amoral behaviour constantly put him at risk of excommunication and he only avoided the sentence of anathema on one occasion by famously forcing a Bishop to absolve him after charging into the cathedral with a drawn sword (Weir, 9).   He married twice and had many lovers, his most famous lover being a Viscountess named Dangerosa.

In 1115, while still married to his second wife Phillipa (daughter of the King of Aragon), William IX desired the wife of one of his vassals, the Viscountess Dangerosa.  With no regard for the consequences of his actions, he “abducted her from her bedchamber and bore her off to his palace at Poitiers”(Weir, 13).  Neither his wife’s remonstrance nor the threat of excommunication swayed him from his purpose.  When the papal legate, Giruad, was sent to reason with the Duke, William IX responded by telling the “bald legate that curls would grow on his pate before he would part with the Viscountess” (Weir, 13).  When excommunication followed, the Duke defiantly responded by having “Dangerosa’s portrait painted on his shield, saying that ‘it was his will to bear her in battle as she had borne him in bed’”(Weir, 13).  A grief stricken Phillipa finally gave up on her husband and retired to Fontevrault Abbey, dying of unknown causes a few years later and Duke William IX continued his illicit affair with the beautiful Viscountess until his own death, which happened while he was still an excommunicate on 10 February 1127. 

Six years before the death of William IX, both he and Dangerosa arranged for their children, from both their legal marriages, to be married.  In 1121, Dangerosa’s daughter, Aenor, by Aimery I de Rochefoucauld, Viscount of Chatellerault and William IX’s heir, by Phillipa, the future Duke William X of Aquitaine became husband and wife.  The first child of this celebrated union was a daughter named Eleanor, who became Duchess of Aquitaine and the future Queen of England.



"What?!"



Weir, Alison.  Eleanor of Aquitaine.  New York: Ballantine Books, 1999

THE THINKER: Maturity & the Modern Adult

I saw an ad for adult multivitamins the other day where the new selling point for the product was that the vitamins had been made into tasty gummy bears; this way the adult too could enjoy vitamins just like their children.

Hum, makes you wonder: are adults today as intellectually mature as their own parents were or grandparents? Etc.   

I shall ponder this further on my next trip to Future Shop.

"Now eat your gummy chew chew yummies.  You're a good man...yes you are! YES YOU ARE!!"

THE THINKER: Passion & Performance

The virtues of passion are promoted constantly in our society.  The paintings of the great post-impressionist artists are often used as artistic proof for what only passion can produce.  When viewing a Vincent Van Gogh, for example, one can feel the passion that the artist possessed for not only the portrait itself but also the world in which the artist worked. This is palpable long after the very existence of the famed painter and many promoters of this element in his work rarely follow their observation with an in depth look at both the life of the man as well as the possible negative implications his proclivity for unbridled passion had on the production of that work.

The accepted position is that without passion there must be a lack of dedication and with this follows a suspicion of not only a failed work ethic, but also the negation of growth.  A lack of palpable passion that can be physically observed by the viewer, then, is often equated as proof of apathy in the subject being viewed. 
   

There is an interesting exchange on this very topic in David Lean’s epic Lawrence of Arabia.  In the film, Peter O’Toole’s Lawrence is not only the star of the movie but a superstar to many of the contemporaries that view him from a distance within the film.  In one scene, an initially sycophantic reporter questions Prince Feisal about the humanitarian way Lawrence treats his Prisoners of War.  The wise Prince seizes the opportunity to point out a distinction between his own good behaviour toward Turkish prisoners (even though the Turks do not treat his own people according to the code outlined by the Geneva Convention) and that of the famed British soldier:

   “With Major Lawrence” the Prince responds, standing imperiously over the American reporter.  “Mercy is a passion. With me, it is merely good manners.”  He then adds demurely: “You may judge which motive is the more reliable.” 

The full irony of this exchange is exposed a few scenes later when Lawrence responds to the massacre of an Arab village by ordering the Arab Army to completely annihilate the offending Turkish soldiers.  Now exhausted and in full retreat, the Turkish battalion is easily encircled and Lawrence, himself, wanders through the inner circle with his men indiscriminately slaughtering all who attempt to surrender before him.

Passion may be a worthy characteristic, but is it as much a prerequisite for excellence as our culture imagines?  Think about it: Chef Gordon Ramsey is passionate, but would that make him the best English teacher?



"I said conjugate the f#*!^ing verb!  GET OUT!!"



THE ANTIQUARIAN: Eleanor of Aquitaine & the March to Jerusalem

When Eleanor Duchess of Aquitaine and Countess of Poitou married Duke Henry of Anjou,  on 18 May 1152, she had already been Queen of France and owned a territory whose eastern border spanned the Atlantic seaboard from Poitou in the north to Gascony in the south, stretching as far west as the eastern marches of Burgundy. Strong minded and individualistic, she was also considered one of the most beautiful women in the world.  In 1154, Henry of Anjou mounted the throne of England as King Henry II and Eleanor became Queen; together they ruled the vast Angevin Empire.

The Nuns of Fontevrault said of her in their necrology “she surpassed all the queens of the world” and adorned her noble birth with “the honesty of her life” and “the flowers of her virtues”(Weir, 344).  In her youth, however, Eleanor was often a figure of scandal and controversy.  Her worldly power excited wonder; her beauty attracted fervent admiration and as a woman who transcended the mores of a male dominated society, she was altogether unique in her time.  Her exploits were retold for generations and the power of her character inspired legends. Attesting to this is a romantic telling of Eleanor’s march to Jerusalem. 

As the legend goes, when Eleanor’s first husband King Louis VII of France heard of the fall of Edessa to the Muslims, he vowed to go to the aid of the Christians in Asia Minor and to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Chambers, 459).  Eleanor who loved adventure and excitement was determined to go with him and because Louis “loved her too passionately to go away without her” he agreed (Chambers, 459).  Eleanor’s presence in the Second Crusade, however, was not merely as the wife of her husband.  By right of title to her Duchy, she insisted on leading her own troops into battle.  So according to one version of the narrative, onlookers who had gathered to watch the crusading army depart were astounded when at the front of her battalion, Eleanor led a band of female warriors (made up of her own royal ladies-in-waiting) dressed up like Amazons.   The Greek chronicler Niketas Choniates described Eleanor arriving in Constantinople at the head of her army as a resurrection of Penthesilea herself, the celebrated Queen of the Amazons (Weir, 57).

Weir, Alison.  Eleanor of Aquitaine.  New York: Ballantine Books, 1999

Chambers, Frank McMinn.  “Some Legends Concerning Eleanor of Aquitaine.”  Medieval Academy of America, Vol. 16, No 4. (Oct., 1941), pp. 459-468.

THE ANTIQUARIAN: Dambusters

The new World War II section of the BBC’s “On This Day” website offers examples of present time reporting for significant news events of the past.  For the date of 17 May, the site chronicles the famed 617 Squadron, and its legendary raid on three dams situated in the heartland of industrial Germany. 

On the evening before 17 May 1943, specially modified Lancaster Bombers began Operation Chastise.  Their target was three key German dams serving the Ruhr Valley on the rivers Mohne, Sorpe and Eder.   The aim was to cut off hydro-electric power and incapacitate the manufacturing of munitions in the area.  

The problem was that the defensive positions of the dams made the use of conventional bombing ineffective.  To solve this problem Dr. Barnes Wallis, the designer of the Wellington Bomber, created barrel shaped bombs that would essentially skip past German defenses.  To deliver Wallis’ ingenious bombs, the crews of 617 Squadron had to fly their Lancaster bombers less than 100 feet above water.  

As the BBC reports, “eight of the original 19 Lancaster Bombers were damaged or shot down, and of the 133 aircrew 53 were killed and 3 captured.”  Thirty of the 133 aircrew were Canadian and fifty percent of these did not return from the raid.  The BBC goes on to report that along with boosting allied morale, Eber damn sustained two major breaches and the Mohne power station was entirely swept away. 

The mission that Adolph Hitler believed could never be undertaken became known to history as “The Dambusters Raid.”

ASIDE: Fatherhood & the Male Animal

Being a man, I have from time to time been accused of selfishness.  For the most part, these observations (usually coming from the fairer sex) were delivered tongue-and-cheek and so I took the remarks lightly and understood them as references to the roguish peculiarities of the Male Animal.  My great Uncle Tim and Great Uncle Percy, for example, were both charming roustabouts. So I simply categorized any inherent self-absorption that I possessed as being part of that ilk. 

In my 29^th year, I married and so becoming a husband in the 21^st century gave me the opportunity to alter my ego-centric view of the world and my place in it.  Among other things, I learned to share a bathroom sink, toothpaste, a bank account, Queen sized bed and, from time to time, even my feelings.  However, our communistic way of living had naturally built-in parameters.  For example, my wife showed no interest in rummaging through my toolbox and my DVD collection of World War Two movies remained largely undisturbed on my carefully organized shelf.

Fatherhood is different! At times, the opportunity for self-denial appears biblical in proportion.  I now share everything!  I share my TV, my tools, my books, my upstairs office, my food, my money, my car, my piano, my gym, my other TV,  my xbox, my blu-ray player….Get the picture?  Everything! The intangible items are also up for grabs: a sense of self would be one of the more abstract examples and, after a hard day’s work, even what is left of my patience.

It’s all worth it of course, but I can’t help but think that early on some sort of Support Group might have better prepared me for all the self-sacrifice involved in raising two small boys.  Sometimes, it just doesn’t seem natural!



"...And so, we must also share those nipples dearest to us!"



EXERCISE: The "Now"

Everyone has heard the advice “live in the now.”  It is a cornerstone of mental health for such branches of psychology as Existential Psychology, Humanist Psychology and Gestalt Psychology.  Philosophers and writers have also emphasized its importance.  Friedrich Nietzsche attached the theory to his ponderings on Eternal Recurrence and the poet Ralph Waldo Emerson remarked: “With the past, I have nothing to do; nor with the future.  I live now.”  Although it is good advice and as a concept relatively easy to comprehend, it is often so foreign to the way we perceive our world that in practice it remains hopelessly outside our conscious understanding. Therefore, consider the following exercise:

Draw a horizontal line across a blank page:

 ______________________________                                                                                            

Now place a circle somewhere on that line:

______________O________________                                                                       

This is generally the way one views their own life.  The circle designates where you are now in your lifespan and the line to the left commonly represents an individual’s past; the line to the right of the circle is usually understood to signify one’s future.  If the common lifespan of the average individual is 76 years of age, you may intuitively alter the position of the circle and, of course, feel more uncomfortable about its placement the farther to the right that you place it.  However (and this is the important part) the line itself is a human construct meant to represent the abstract of time as linear.  Therefore, the line actually doesn’t exist---so erase the line.  What are you left with?

                         O                                                                 

You!  Sans the line, it is easier to see that physically you are in the only place you can possibly be: the present.  The problem is that mentally we don’t perceive it that way and are always projecting ourselves elsewhere, into a past that no longer exists or into a future which cannot exist except as an expectation that occurs mentally in the present.  Actually, there is only now.

This is the practitioner’s notion of freedom; the individual liberates himself from the non-existent past and also frees himself from his own expectations of a non-existent future.  He is where he is supposed to be because this is where he is now!  In this way, the significance of “now” consciously supersedes the distractions of past and future so that the practitioner can more fully attend to the present moment. 

To put it simply: if life is just a series of Nows, who can afford to waste any?




"What do you mean, you promise to be faithful 'Now?!'"