Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘history’

Marcella Pattyn, Last of the Beguine

Marcella Pattyn, in a photo published in the April 27 issue of “The Economist”.

Can 800 years of Western History — can the history of all human experience — find a home in a single life?

If so, then that life belonged to Marcella Pattyn, last of the Beguine, who died on April 14 and for whom an obituary was published in The Economist.

The Beguines were trying to be modern women long before there were modern women.

Their communities appeared in the Low Countries during the early 1200s. The Beguines were expected to commit themselves to chastity, faith, and charitable service, although they were not nuns and took no vows. They were also expected to read, study, support themselves through profitable labor, and choose the rules they would follow in their communities.

The church and the men of the time didn’t like women outside their understanding or control, and sought to bring them under thumb, using tools that included prosecution for heresy and the stake.

So the Beguines were an early example of the great program of human freedom, agency, and independence which as has been the work of the West, fitfully and all too imperfectly, for centuries as well as the inspiration for a typical opposition to that freedom.

As a young woman, Marcella Pattyn wanted to devote herself to the service of her Christian god, but no order of nuns would take her because she was nearly blind and the first Beguine community she tried sent her home after a week. The Economist reports Marcella still wept over these rejections in her old age. Some wounds are so deep we carry them for life.

But Marcella did find a Beguine community that accepted her, and there she showed an irresistible determination to pray, to be useful, to comfort the sick (which she often did by playing the banjo and accordion), and to live with an exuberance that did not consult the tastes or expectations or opinions of the world.

It seems to me Marcella’s wounds and her exuberance were paired; that her pain and joy were equal blessings, and that they must be praised and embraced equally or not at all.

At the end of her life, she was alone — a condition both emblematic and universal — although she was celebrated by the town in which she lived for being the last of her kind. Now she’s gone and Marcella lives only in memory. When those memories die, too, what will become of Marcella then?

Read Full Post »

"James Joyce" by Edna O'Brien | Review  BiographyHypothesis: A genius is a person whose books we want to read and whose ass we want to kick.

That certain describes the James Joyce presented in Edna O’Brien’s brief, readable biography of the great Irish writer. O’Brien’s tone in James Joyce is more novelist than academic and that combined with the occasional Joycean flourish, the lack of footnotes, and the appalling bad behavior made me wonder, “Is this all true?”

In O’Brien’s biography, we see Joyce treating his family with contempt and his friends as servants and ATMs. Joyce’s marriage to Nora Barnacle seems to have been based primarily on erotic passion (their sex letters are monuments to skeezy) although they remained together for life and O’Brien does not tell of infidelities by either James or Nora.

O’Brien reports no evidence of Joyce having a relationship with his son Giorgio. Joyce is distraught over his daughter Lucia’s madness, although his insistence that her behavior was a sign of genius rather than insanity smacks of self-aggrandizement as much as denial. Joyce is devastated by the death of the father he ignored while the man was living. As far as we can tell from O’Brien, Joyce cared for no one else.

Through it all, Joyce carousels. And works himself to exhaustion and blindness creating the most significant works of English literature written in the 20th century. The books are worth the price of all this misery. But I’m glad I didn’t have to pay it.

Read Full Post »

Benjamin Franklin author of The Drinker's DictionaryAmong his many achievements, Benjamin Franklin was the publisher and editor of The Pennsylvania Gazette, which offered news, opinion, and humor to its readers.

The humor includes “The Drinker’s Dictionary” brought out by Franklin in January 1736. The piece begins with a condemnation of drunkenness I don’t take with complete seriousness since Franklin is also famous for saying “Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy”.

In any case, The Dictionary features more than 200 “round-about Phrases” or slang terms “to signify plainly that A MAN IS DRUNK.”

Some of this slang does not make much sense, having grown enigmatic over the past 270 years. However, I think that makes it funnier, the way some drunk men become more amusing as they make less sense. Here is a selection of my favorites:

B. He’s Biggy, Boozy, Bowz’d, Buskey, Buzzey, Bungey. He’s kiss’d black Betty.

C. He’s been too free with the Creature. Sir Richard has taken off his Considering Cap.

G. He’s Glad, Groatable, Gold-headed, Booz’d the Gage, As Dizzy as a Goose.

J. He’s Jolly, Jagg’d, Jambled, Going to Jerusalem, Jocular, Been to Jerico, Juicy.

P. He’s as good conditioned as a Puppy. He’s been among the Philippians. He’s contending with Pharaoh.

R. He’s Rocky, Raddled, Rich, Religious, Lost His Rudder, Ragged, Rais’d.

S. He’s Steady, Stiff, Stew’d, Stubb’d, Soak’d, Soft.

W. He’s Wise. He’s Wet.

Read Full Post »

White Men who are extinct. These Civil War veterans in a gesture of reconciliation.I am a white male middle-class heterosexual Protestant. I am becoming extinct. It’s the end of the world as my people know it. And in the words of REM, I feel fine.

I don’t mean we are becoming literally extinct, of course. But white men will finally cease to be the only face of power in the United States and much of the world, western and otherwise, in 2013.

Don’t expect us to go quietly. Some truly spectacular gerrymandering, even by American standards, could leave the House of Representatives in the hands of white men who do not represent a majority of their party, much less a majority of their country, through the end of the decade.

We’ll continue to shout the world is coming to an end. But it is not the world coming to an end. It is only our world ending. Year by year, we’ll shout louder and year by year, more and more of our country will turn their backs on us and go about their business of freedom, not based on our principles and demands, but on their own. Year by year, we’ll get older, until we are too infirmed to shake our fists or write our checks or cast our votes. Then we’ll die. And that will be that.

The Massey family can reliable trace its presence on the American continent to 1696. I am related to that family through my father’s father’s mother. Other branches of the family tell the story, less reliable, of relatives that ran a make-shift hospital during the Revolutionary War. We talk about a real great great grandfather who is rumored to have been at Gettysburg, although evidence proving this tale is in short supply.

A story more likely to be true is the German-speaking ancestor who got off a ship in Philadelphia and began walking west. At every farm where they spoke German, he asked if help was needed. At the first one that did, he settled and eventually married a daughter of the family. So were the seeds of new lives in a new world planted, including my own.

Looking at this history, I do not think or feel I am any more or any less American than any other person born here or any person who takes the oath of citizenship today or any person who simply thinks some day he or she might like to take it.

As many have said before – including our newly re-elected president – “American” is not a race or a nationality or a gender or a religion or a culture or a language or a sexual orientation or a certain sufficient quantity of money in pocket. It is an idea to which all people should be able to aspire, and which all people should share, equally. Here and other places.

I am aware how far short of its ideals the American project has fallen, and know the pain of this failure has fallen on others who are not myself.

But 236 years of painful progress has still yielded progress and more is coming. This progress will be fitful and slow, always compromised, sometimes bought off or bargained away, thwarted, threatened, stalled, mocked, ignored, and attacked. Still it will come.

The seeds of new lives will be planted in fields once denied. A new world will grow again as it has grown before. For that I am grateful. And with that, I send my New Year’s greetings to you all

PGM

Read Full Post »

In Bring Up the Bodies, Hilary Mantel continues her brilliant speculation on the life of Thomas Cromwell – Master Secretary and all-around fixer for King Henry VIII of England – which she began in her Man Booker Prize-winning novel, Wolf Hall.

A major reason Mantel is enjoying success with these novels is because she persuades us to take the side of a man who – looked at objectively – enriches himself working as a merciless administrator of state-sanctioned murder.

This is a pretty neat trick and I think there are several reasons Mantel pulls it off. Here they are:

Thomas Cromwell as Compromised Corporate “Warrior” but Man of Private Virtue

One reason readers sympathize with Thomas Cromwell is because he is an idealized version of modern business professionals, who are sometimes required by corporate structures or profit pressures to compromise their principles, but who work hard to retain their personal integrity.

Consider: Thomas Cromwell is a man of ambition and ability who wants to enjoy career success and earn a good living for his family. But the institutions in which Cromwell can gain this success are all corrupt. Worse, they are run by self-dealing, dangerous, and arbitrary men. And the most dangerous of all is Cromwell’s boss: King Henry VIII.

Cromwell thrives by focusing only on getting Henry what he wants and making Henry believe that what he wants is right and proper. Cromwell doesn’t think about whether what he does is moral, partially because ultimate responsibility for his actions lies with the king – Henry decides what will happen, Cromwell only figures out how – and partially because arguing with or failing Henry will cost Cromwell his job, if not his head.

In the areas of his life he can control, Thomas Cromwell acts with integrity. He has not come to wealth from greed although he has accumulated great wealth. He does not strike from malice, although he will defend himself and he will avenge his friends. He nurtures talented young men of low birth and gives them chances to advance. He loves his family and cares for his household.

This is how men and women who have succeeded in today’s capitalist societies see themselves (many times correctly), and these men and women are a large part of Hilary Mantel’s readership. So it’s not a surprise they like Thomas Cromwell.

Thomas Cromwell as a Horatio Alger’s Hero

Thomas Cromwell’s life story is a classic “up by your bootstraps” narrative. He is the son of a physically abusive blacksmith who ran away from home as a young man, survived as a common soldier on foreign battlefields, succeeded by virtue of his talents, and came home to be the “local boy who made it big”.

This story appeals to modern capitalists everywhere, and it should. The fact that Cromwell rises in a world where success is almost always determined by noble birth makes it even more appealing.

Thomas Cromwell as a “Particular but Persuasive” First-Person Narrator

First-person storytelling naturally encourages readers to side with the narrator (unless he is astonishingly and relentlessly loathsome), but Cromwell’s first-person earns benefits beyond the normal advantage. And the key is that Cromwell uses the word “he” instead of “I” when he talks about himself.

Some reviews have regarded this as a tick or affectation on Mantel’s part. But I think it’s astute. First, Cromwell is the ultimate dispassionate observer, and thus manipulator, of Henry and the court. He never allows vanity or greed or hatred or fear or revenge to interfere with his judgment or make him act before he’s ready and before he’s certain. The “he” fits Cromwell.

More importantly, the “he” in Cromwell’s narration makes you feel that Cromwell is showing you the objective truth, not giving you his version of events. Cromwell is not selling you a line. He’s not trying to talk you over into his point of view. He’s giving you the facts, Mantel is saying, and Cromwell in those facts looks pretty good.

Read Full Post »

In The Killer Angels, Michael Shaara tells the story of the Battle of Gettysburg during its three most consequential days: July 1 -3, 1863.

Although the novel features a large cast of Union and Confederate officers, The Killer Angels belongs to Robert E. Lee, who is about to make a fatal blunder by ordering Pickett’s Charge, and James Longstreet, Lee’s second in command, who sees the blunder coming but cannot persuade the Old Man to stop it.

Shaara is critical of the romanticism of the South’s gentleman warriors, yet engages in romanticism himself. He takes us into the minds of the commanders who act decisively, but ignores those who hesitate or stumble. Officers die quickly and neatly, or discretely off-stage, while the enlisted soldiers just die in masses, except for the occasional unnamed man who screams as blood and entrails pour from his wound.

Still, Shaara recreates the Battle of Gettysburg with clarity and economy, and with insight into the thoughts and emotions of successful fighting commanders. The Killer Angels won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1975.

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 680 other followers