crazy book lady...

...or bibliophile. That sounds less compulsive, doesn't it?

I needed to get the books out of my daughter's room, to see if that would effect or improve her allergy situation. Another in a long list of lifestyle adjustments for us both, which has included the exile of my beloved cat of fifteen years to the Virginia suburbs (sigh). But that's another story...

...so back to the books, and boy, there are a lot of them! I was able to get her books into a medium size bookcase and two small storage units for easy access. I also decided to move the three piles of "to-reads" from my bedroom out to the foyer as well, which is now our ersatz library. While I was doing all of this moving around I decided to take a little inventory and see if I could shed some - for donation or trade at my favorite used bookstore. Not a lot of luck. There were a few titles that my daughter was willing to pass on to a baby friend of ours, but not much more. And looking at my books, well, they are divided into quite a few categories, none of which I'm wiling to pare down yet either, if ever:

• My dad's books - not a lot, but some poetry (Wallace Stevens), astronomy and history titles that make me think of him
• Vintage children's books - from my mom's and my childhood, some are pretty fragile, some are pretty amazing (Many Moons, D'Aulaire's Book of Greek Myths)
• Travel and foreign language books - remind me of trips to Italy, Egypt, Greece and France. The travel guides are totally out of date, but...
• Mystery - mostly Agatha Christie from my mom and Lawrence Block from my dad
• Art, Art, Art - catalogs from exhibitions or featuring favorite artists and museums (Botticelli, Musée de Cluny, Bayeux Tapestry, Titian)
• Historical fiction - right now it's medieval England and France that's floating my boat (The Sunne in Splendour, Time and Chance, Mademoiselle Boleyn)
• Cookbooks - mainly Mediterranean Cuisine (The Frugal Gourmet Cooks Three Ancient Cuisines, Mario's Holiday Cookbook)

As I was looking at all the books, I started thinking about connections and how one thing leads you to another. Of course my art education has provided a background for my interest in Ancient and European art, culture and history, whether I have pursued this interest through fiction (Christian Jacq's Ramses and Stone of Light series) or non-fiction (Antonia Fraser's Wives of Henry VIII, Death in Ancient Egypt, Love and Hate in Jamestown). But anyway, I find that a movie or a television program like The Tudors led me to read more about the period. Reading about the Tudors made me want to know about the Wars of the Roses, which led me back to the Plantagenets and how it all started. As I read about the English I became more interested in France, as the two separate countries we know today were in those days completely intertwined. This brought back my trip to the Loire Valley, which was part of a tour of northern France. At the time I was not so interested in chateau after chateau, but now I realize that I was walking in the footsteps of Francois Premier, Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitatine as I strolled through Chinon and Angers, where I saw the amazing Apocalypse Tapestry. Of course now I want to go back to France and England, armed with my better understanding and reference points. The question is, once there, what will spark my fancy and lead me off on another thread, supplemented of course by books, books, books?

humans is so crazy...

Well, I finally finished Devil's Brood, but is it finished with me? I am still pretty darn interested in this time period (12th century Europe and beyond), this family (the Plantagenets), and all the crazy timeless human emotions. This book was supposed to be the third in a trilogy about Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II and their family, but apparently the author, Sharon Kay Penman, isn't quite through with them either, as she is planning to write another focusing on Richard (the Lionheart) and his brother John, which most folks know from the Errrol Flynn Robin Hood classic. Both men were very different from their standard portrayals of hero and villain, so it will be interesting to see what Penman does with them.

What kept haunting me throughout the story was how Henry and Eleanor sacrificed their marriage by stubbornly following their own ambitions or fears. This is hardly a new story. Who hasn't a busted love affair to tell about? What Penman skillfully brought out in their story was that even though they were unable to trust one another, they continued to share a great bond, even at times love for one another, through fifteen years of warring, capture, imprisonment, and heartache, as they watched their sons rebel, die or drift away.

The human heart can be so hard to fathom, especially by its owner. Sometimes the mind leads you on a path away from your heart. Even more often, vice/versa. The question is, after love and heartbreak, and in these peoples' cases, all-out war, can two hearts find their way back again? For Eleanor and Henry, it did, at times, usually through grief, which they could share without all-consuming power and politics in the way.

primogeniture

...was established in the 11th century, to assure succession and inheritance by the eldest son. It is a major component of the rivalry between the sons of Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II of England.

I am almost finished with Devil's Brood, and even as the book details all the broken promises and political machinations of England and Aquitaine's first family, I can't help but relate to the inheritance predicament. As a first-born child and the daughter of the family, to boot, I will be shouldering most responsibilities when called to step in and help my aging or ailing mother. It isn't the 11th century, so I am the go-to gal, rather than my younger brother. I'm unsure how much of this is a first-born thing, a mother-daughter thing, or just a personality thing (I'm a problem-solver type.)

When Eleanor and Henry's son Geoffrey, the Duke of Brittany, died unexpectedly as the result of a tournament injury, his young widow was immediately assessed for marriageability, while still pregnant with Geoffrey's unborn son. The kings of France and England (her father-in-law), wrangled for control of her children, and most importantly, their inheritance. She was not consulted about whether she could even consider another marriage (in which she would immediately be supposed to produce another heir), or how she would want her children to be brought up and where. As a single mom who gets to call all the shots (and also do all the work - "Mommy, why are you always working?" she asked me last night), this is unfathomable.

Death in families is always hard, fraught with emotional and financial issues. I hope that there will be no wrangling when the time comes and I will be called on to administer an estate, albeit one not nearly as vast as what was at stake for the heirs of Devil's Brood.

powerful women

I'm at the part in the book I'm reading about Eleanor of Aquitaine where her husband, King Henry II of England has taken her captive, as a punishment for her urging her sons to rebel against him. Eleanor was an unusual woman for her time, and an unusual queen for any age.

Most royal marriages were arranged to bring wealth and land to the kingdom. That was definitely the case in Eleanor, who was the Duchess of Aquitaine, a vast land which comprised most of what is now modern southern France. What makes Eleanor different from other queens, was her desire to still maintain her control over the lands that were her birthright, and the fact that both her husband (before her betrayal) and her son, Richard the Lionheart, at various times in their reigns left Eleanor in charge.

I haven't seen the Lion in Winter since I was a kid. I've got to check that out again...

There are lots of interviews happening with the next first family, and one of the most consistent questions of Michelle Obama, is "what else" the First Lady might do, besides being, well, the First Lady. It will be interesting to see if Michelle, once she gets her girls settled in to White House life and Washington, picks a First Lady "project' or gets more deeply involved in national policy. We'll see...

here come the brides and grooms

My friend Steven had a very interesting post on Prop 8 recently. Like him, I have always been ambivalent about the institution of marriage. My parents had a rocky one, and when my mom left after the nest emptied, it was a tough one for all concerned. I'm sure divorce is hard on small children, but let me tell you, it isn't any easier on 21-year-olds, either.

I've been reading a lot about Eleanor of Aquitaine recently. I like to go back and forth between actual histories and good historical fiction, like the trilogy by Sharon Kay Penman. The fiction gets me into the period, and the non-fiction gives me the facts and figures. Eleanor was one of history's strongest women, with the vast lands of Aquitaine as her birthright. Her marriages to two kings, Louis Capet of France and Henry II of England, played out as battles to hold onto those lands, and later, to try to secure them for her favorite son, Richard (of Lionheart fame.)

Eleanor's status as a woman prevented her from physically or legally fighting for her own rights. She was unable to give Louis a male heir, which resulted in the end of that marriage. She wasn't allowed to see the two daughters she bore him once the marriage ended. She instigated her sons by Henry to defy their father with disastrous results. Marriage in the 12th and 13th century was beneficial primarily for the man, whether king or commoner.

The question is, with the "women's movement," have things improved all that much? Do women get equal pay or equal consideration as their male counterparts in the workplace? Sometimes. Do women with children get treated differently than their childless female co-workers? You better believe it. As a single mom, I'm the head of household, chief cook, bottle-washer and breadwinner. I guess I have more of a say over my destiny than the great Quean Eleanor did. So that's something.

I don't believe that marriage (no offense to President-elect Obama) is a matter to do with religion. I hate to tell the bible thumpers who seem the most up in arms about this issue, but medieval folks were a lot more devout than we are today, and marriage was still viewed primarily as a legal contract. It was important to legally document the heirs to an estate. A child born out of wedlock could not inherit, no exceptions. Where is God in all this?

I want all people to have the same rights and opportunities in our modern world. I don't want government to keep getting entangled in personal rights, whether it be who can marry whom, who can adopt a child, Roe v. Wade, etc. I find it interesting that marriage, an institution that has seemed on the wane, is getting so much attention. It will be interesting to see how our new president deals this issue while trying to drag us all into the new millenium.