Love and the Marriage, it’s an institute you can’t disparage

This post is not going to go with the flow of my usual blog postings, but yet, I find this to be a long time coming post.

The History of Marriage

The history of marriage has been a long and complicated one. The history of Christian marriage is less long, but still complicated. It was never black and white. Christian marriage was only begun to be developed in the early 11th century.

For a long time, Christians could not marry within 5 degrees of affinity. Meaning that if they were 5th cousins, they were ineligible to marry each other. How were the many nobles able to marry? They simply applied for dispensations from the Pope, which were usually granted. In the case of the Spanish Hapsburg family, there were few marriages between double first cousins, first cousins, uncle and nieces, not allowed within the Christian marriage, but yet, ultimately allowed.
It is hard to believe that many peasants that lived in rural villages would be bothered to make sure that their spouses would not be within five degrees of affinity. Given that most people rarely ventured far out of their village, conclusions could be drawn that many married within their own communities and families. Today, the Catholic Church does not prohibit marriage between distant cousins, and I know of a few people personally that are products of 1st and 2nd cousins.
Henry VIII also used the degree of affinity to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon (his brother’s widow). His excuse was that the papal dispensation that was granted to Catherine and Henry was not the word of God.
Translation: It was not the word of God, because it did not suit my selfish needs. It was Henry’s desire for a male heir, and Anne Boleyn that caused the detachment from Henry and Rome. Henry changed the definition of marriage, by marrying his former mistresses’ sister (also not accepted using degree of affinity). Pope refused to grant the annulment, so Henry broke with the Church completely, and thus the Church of England (and new marriage definitions were born).
So the five degrees of affinity was a decent idea (though genetics weren’t known then), but completely impractical.
And many Christians, could not afford the privilege of weddings and officiants either. They could however afford to make solemn promises in the presence of two witnesses that they should be married.In the 15th-16th century, a betrothal and solemn promise was seen as the same as marriage, given that Henry VIII used Anne of Cleve’s pre-contract to the Duke of Lorraine’s son as a valid reason for their annulment. But the Bible differentiates between the betrothal and the marriage itself, but no distinction was made between these two in these centuries. (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=M&artid=213).
According the Old Testament, the betrothal was a price paid by the groom for his bride, to the father. These later come in forms of bride prices and dowries (there are differences between the two) practiced by royalty and nobility to a great extent, and peasantry to a lesser extent. Peasant women may simply have a few dresses and some household items, while wealthier women would have many dresses, gold, jewels, etc.
Nowadays, do we accept bride prices? Or are dowries necessary for a Christian marriage? Perhaps in some cultures so, but not in most of “Christian” world (for lack of a better term, if someone has something better please inform me, and I am not making derisive commentary about the dowry system as a whole).  There may be some men that ask their future father in law for their permission to marry their daughter, but I have yet to hear of a man paying the bride’s father for her hand.
Dowries and bride prices: Not in today’s world. So that has changed.
The Old Testament also talks of bigamy (only men marrying multiple women), with the exception of some sects (some extreme Mormon sects and I don’t know of others, please let me know), it is not legal or even acceptable in most Christian divisions.
The New Testament says that one must be monogamous with one another, both the man and the wife. So Jesus changed the definition of marriage. It goes without saying that the idea of monogamy was flouted by the Christian world for several centuries henceforth. Many kings had mistresses, and flings, it was however, unacceptable for women to be adulterous.
Bigamy: Not in today’s world. So that has changed.
So basically, this post is a long winded explanation of saying that the Christian marriage has changed from it’s inception to today’s world. People’s ideas and sensibilities change all the time, so basically, deeming homosexual marriage unacceptable because it ruins Christian marriage is pure hogwash.
So dearest NOW (National Organization for Marriage), Concerned Women, Bigots, and the lot of you, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

I see London, I see France!

I’ve come to the conclusion recently, that I need to make a big change in my life. Being miserable is not suitable to my mind. Being unhappy is not good for anyone attached. Misery does enjoy company, but toxicity itself is a contagion. Much like toxicity of the soul, there is toxicity and the contagion of hysteria and fear. Maximilien Robespierre was executed tomorrow July 28, 1794.

Maximilien Robespierre
Born: 6 May 1758
Death: 28 July 1794

Maximilien Robespierre was born to a lawyer, and the daughter of a brewer. He was the oldest of four children, born into bastardy, his parents had a rushed marriage. His mother died in childbirth in 1764, and his father left Arras and died in Munich in 1777. Maximilien and his siblings were brought up by their mother’s family.
Maximilien attend collège at the age of eight, and obtained a scholarship from the bishop at the age of 11 to attend Lycee Louis le Grand, where he learned much about the Roman Republic, oratory and many of the speakers (Cicero, Cato). At the age of 17, and shortly after the coronation of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, The Lycee determining that he had a gift for oratory had decided that out of five hundred pupils, it would be Maximilien that would give the speech to the visiting monarchs.
An avid follower of Jean-Jacques Rosseau, Robespierre believed in the goodness of the French people. He obtained a lawyer’s education and was admitted to the bar in Arras. He was appointed a local judge, but resigned soon after to prevent himself from having to issue a death sentence. He was a known advocate for the poor and extolled the virtues of the Enlightenment.
Robespierre became involved in politics when Louis XVI allowed provincial elections, he decided to run as a deputy for the Third Estate and was elected.
He became a frequent speaker the (newly named) Constituent Assembly, where he
” soon became involved with the new Society of the Friends of the Constitution, known eventually as the Jacobin Club. This had consisted originally of the deputies from Brittany only. After the Assembly moved to Paris, the Club began to admit various leaders of the Parisian bourgeoisie to its membership. As time went on, many of the more intelligent artisans and small shopkeepers became members of the club. Among such men, Robespierre found a sympathetic audience. As the wealthier bourgeois of Paris and right-wing deputies seceded from the club of 1789, the influence of the old leaders of the Jacobins, such as Barnave, Duport, Alexandre de Lameth, diminished. When they, alarmed at the progress of the Revolution, founded the club of the Feuillants in 1791, the left, including Robespierre and his friends, dominated the Jacobin Club.” (Wikipedia.org)
Robespierre became very popular amongst the citizenry of Arras and a lot of France.
Despite his earlier distaste for the death penalty, he advocated the death penalty for Louis XVI. He believed that Louis betrayed France by fleeing to Varennes, and it was in the interest of public safety to eliminate Louis. After Louis’ execution, the power of Robespierre and the Jacobins increased dramatically. A nine member Committee of Public Safety replaced the government institutions, and while all members were supposed to be equal, it was unilaterally Robespierre that was in charge and the defacto ruler of France.
The food riots and violence did not decrease after the death of Louis and thus the Reign of Terror was born (This is obviously an oversimplification of the events no singular event causes such catastrophe).
Robespierre lauded the Reign of Terror, and said it was necessary to eliminate France of the non virtuous citizens. It became such that counter revolutionaries were not given fair trials and were executed for simplistic and silly reasons. This aroused the ire of the French citizens, and his political enemies. On July 26th 1794, he gave a two hour long speech claiming that there are conspiracies amongst the other Committees and his innocence in any wrong doing.
He was arrested the next day, and executed the day after.

A Husterical Moment!

I awoke this morning with a layer of sweat on my body. The fan was all for naught, because the heat decided to ignore the modern appliance and attack me anyways. I get up to work at the normal time, I do the normal thing, I leave at the normal time.

I get home to my non air-conditioned apartment, and try to remain as still as possible. I make a trip to the local mall knowing full well that the air conditioning will be on full blast. I do my necessary errands, and sit in the food court eating fries with cheese sauce. Take the fry, dip it, put it in my mouth. Take. Dip. Eat. I look at the surrounding persons, and all are locked into conversation with their shopping partners. I grab some ice cream and head home to the 7th circle of heat.

Though, the heat cannot compare to the heat that Jan Hus had to deal with at his execution taking place this day 1415.

JAN HUS

Born: c.1372
Died: July 6, 1415

There is little known of Jan Hus' childhood and family structure. The best estimate of his year of birth is 1372, though it could be as early as 1369 or late as 1373.

What is known is that in 1392, Hus graduated from the University of Prague with a bachelor of arts degree, and obtained a Master's Degree in 1394.  He began teaching at the university soon after, the university had been going through some changes, due to the bitter feud between the Bohemians and Germans.

One of the earliest dissidents of the Catholic Church, he was influenced by the ideas of  John Wycliffe, which were transmitted by the servants of the now deceased Anne of Bohemia, Queen of England.

The University of Prague was been ripped apart by the Papal Schism, whereby there were two popes, Pope Gregory XII and Avignon Pope Benedict XIII, allegiances were divided. A solution to this problem was to elect a third pope, Alexander V, who was known as the Anti-Pope. The King of Germany, Wenceslaus, supported Benedict XIII for he felt Gregory would interfere in his plans to become Holy Roman Emperor.

Hus spoke out against (via his writings, pamphlets and lectures)

• Papal indulgences: where sins would be forgiven for a nominal fee. 
• The Crusades: he said that no man should take up the sword on behalf of the Church. Rather the pope should pray for his enemies.

Such ideas were considered heresy and were punished. Hus was sent to trial, where he was encouraged to recant everything he claimed, not venerate his predecessor Wycliffe and quit preaching his ideas. He resisted and was burned at the stake. 

Que(bec) Sera Sera!

The past few weeks have been interesting. My friend and I went to Quebec City for a few days to escape the G20 and the chaos that was bound to occur. We toured the lovely old city, reminiscent of European cities but with a French-Canadian twist. I loved the many narrow streets, even though the smell of horse dung sometimes took over my senses. My friend clicked away at her camera, the sounds of the camera eventually faded into the background of other noises from the streets.

Chateau Frontenac is nothing short of beautiful. The hotel dominates the city skyline (if one can call it that). The Citadelle was pretty cool, as was the Aquarium in Sainte-Foy. The food was good (save for the duck, far too greasy for this woman's stomach), and the drink wasn't a plenty. Met some really sophisticated cab drivers (who shared his Chopin love with us).

Unfortunately while we were in the lovely city, there was chaos through out Toronto. The cops arresting people left and right, most were completely innocent of any wrong doing, but rights were suspended because a few "important" people were here. My disappointment is not with the protesters (other than the vigilantes, but curiously those were allowed to run rampant causing destruction to my beloved city?), it is with the security squads that abused the citizens they were supposed to protect. For those who are interested in a perspective from a detained man go here. http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2204676030&topic=18059&post=135891#!/note.php?note_id=397205503638&id=511491565

Happy Independence Day to our American friends!

Incidentally, Quebec City was founded only one day ago, July 3, 1608!

In honour of the founding, today's historical figure is Samuel de Champlain

SAMUEL DU CHAMPLAIN
Born: c.1567-1580
Died:  December 25, 1635

Samuel du Champlain was born into a family of mariners likely in the French province of Saintonge. There is uncertainty about the year of his birth, the most likely year is 1580 as thought by scholars.

In 1598, Du Champlain's uncle invited him to join him on a ship to transport soldiers to Cadiz, Spain.  Du Champlain joined the voyage and while the ship exchanged hands, he took meticulous notes about information he heard about Spanish landholdings in the New World, and gave the information to King Henry II and was rewarded with an annual pension. He returned to Cadiz in 1600, and his uncle had fallen ill and asked him to look after the business affairs. When his uncle passed on 1601, he left Samuel his estate, which included some real estate and a 150 tonne ship. He was given the post of geographer to King Henry II, where he would go to the ports of France and would be given information about the New World from the season fisherman. He also noted the previous failures of France to colonize the Americas, such as: Pierre de Chauvin's loss of the fur trade monopoly. Assigned to renew the fur trade agreement with the First Nations was Aymar de Chaste, and Samuel asked for permission to go with him on his first voyage.

The expedition was lead by Francois du Pont, and from him Samuel would learn much about North America and they established an affable long term friendship. Samuel's goal was to explore further than Jacques Cartier did 60 years earlier, he created a map of the St. Lawrence and upon his return to France, published his journal, Des Sauvages: ou voyage de Samuel Champlain, de Brouages, faite en la France nouvelle l'an 1603 ("Concerning the Savages: or travels of Samuel Champlain of Brouages, made in New France in the year 1603") where he detailed his trip and how he dealt with the Native locals of the area (including meetings with Begouret, a chief of Montagnais.

Champlain made a second trip to the St. Lawrence, again as an observer, and took notes of the areas for a few years.  The trip was "lead by Pierre Dugua de Mons, a noble and Protestant merchant who had been given a fur trading monopoly in New France by the king."

Dugua asked Champlain to establish a new French colony on the St Lawrence, and on July 3,1608, Quebec City was founded with the creation of a fortification (a moat, 3 buildings colloquially named the Habitation, and stockades).