Patrick's Day: what the hell?

I've a new post on GlobalComment

“You say Saint Patty’s
And I say Saint Paddy’s
Let’s call the whole thing off.”

Chances are that somewhere near you is celebrating the 17 March. From Dili to Tucúman, from Nairobi to Wasila, people celebrate the patron saint of Ireland. But do they really?

Who was this guy? No one knows whether he was from Britain or France. We do know that he was a slave in the mountains for seven years, eating what the pigs ate. A more humble life might be difficult to find. Aided by a mysterious voice he escaped the land of the Gael, but he returned years later to Christianise Pagan Ireland.

Little is known about his mission. All accounts of his doings were chronicled after his death. The only primary accounts are two letters written by Patrick, in which he declares that he “baptised thousands of people”, ordained priests to continue his work and targeted wealthy women, some of whom became nuns in the face of family opposition, and the sons of kings. *

If this was not enough to cement his mission, Patrick reputedly banished the snakes, used the natural flora to explain the Holy Trinity and even baptised one of Ireland’s greatest warriors, Oisín mac Fionn, after his return from Tír na nÓg.

It does make one wonder about the steadfastness of the Irish to yield their gods so quickly, while not under the threat of arms. Although since all remaining documents are accounts kept by the early Irish Christian Church, there is room for a little scepticism. Naturally 17 March is a holy day of obligation in Irish Catholicism – a day for solemn reflection and mass going.


Continue reading here...


* Thomas Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland (Cambridge, 2000)

Valentine's Day - love or blood?

I've a new post on GlobalComment:

“If you really love her, send her roses,” the advertisements proclaim. “Diamonds are forever.” “Say it with flowers.” Woman waits to receive, whereas man hunts an appropriate gift to present. The entire posits woman as object and man as subject. Worldly retailers may supply cards for those who do not identify within the heterosexist paradigm and those in unconventional relationships, but the current Valentine’s Day mostly celebrates the rigidly traditional relationship.


Valentine’s Day is an odd day to celebrate in general, though. The saints that have been named Valentine have no connection to romantic love. The majority were martyred during the early Christian period. The origins of Valentine’s Day as a celebration of romantic love are obscure. In my opinion, there are two paradigms with regard to Valentine’s Day.

The first is that of romantic love which first appeared in Parlement of Foules by Chaucer, which celebrated the engagement of King Richard II of England to Anne of Bohemia. Given that Chaucer served the king as a customs official and diplomat, it is possible that the links between Valentine’s Day and romantic love may have been a nod to his patron. Anne of Bohemia is known to have travelled extensively with King Richard, which might be an indicator of a strong bond between the couple, as it was unusual behaviour at the time.

Continue reading here...

Review of 'Sex with kings'

Just finished reading this 'Sex with kings : 500 Years of Adultery, Power, Rivalry, and Revenge' by Eleanor Herman and I feel very ambivalent about it. On the one hand, it is a very interesting read about a topic that is not covered often - women in history. On the other hand it is written by an author who insults her heroines and is clearly very sexist.

Women in history have been ignored or their lives explained away as anomalies. History is written by the strong and powerful and women's history has been ignored. Nevertheless women in the past ruled, became pirates, took lovers, led battles and triumphed. They do not deserve to be painted in only as an afterthought. So I like the idea and the history in 'Sex with kings'. The author uses primary sources and her research cannot be faulted. It is an interesting book and I would have loved it if it was not for the author's sexism.

It pervades the book and turned my stomach. She makes judgement calls on the heroines of the book. She refers to the king's mistresses as grasping whores, refers to the work as sin and their payment as their ill-gotten gains. Now I understand that these were the attitudes of the time and that this is a history book but her disgust for the métier of these women destroyed my enjoyment of the book. As the world knows, women did not have much choice or freedom under the political systems of the past. The work available included sex work. Why so does a soi-disant historian, who is familiar with conditions and restrictions of the time condemn these women so harshly for exercising the choices available?

Herman describes Madame de Pompadour's job as exhausting and high pressured. Madame de Pompadour always had to be 'on'. Sick days did not exist. She couldn't tell the king to leave her alone, if she wasn't in the mood. Her position was exhausting and it was constant. She had to be wary of usurpers and political plots. Her life was shortened considerably due to stress. And the lesson Herman describes herself as having learned, is to always to there for her husband and to never nag. When he arrives home, she gets up to make him a cup of tea and fetches his slippers and says that she'll never get divorced because she takes care of her man like Madame de Pompadour took care of Louis XV.

It is the wrong lesson. The lesson to be taken from these women who fought for and yielded power is that we are not here for anyone's entertainment. We have, mostly, the choice to say yes or no. We have the choice to be independent and earn our own way and it is a choice that few societies had. The women that Herman discusses were powerful in the only way they could be. Nowadays, many would be involved in politics. Diane de Poitiers might be president. She certainly made laws and signed official papers. These women were strong and deserve to not be insulted by a modern mistress wannabe, who has the freedom to choose.