Carpe Diem

...could you ALL please stop being so interesting...I'm not getting ANY work done you know!

Humph!

Control, luna, that's the key...SWITCH OFF THE BLOG...*whimpers*

Bye, bye everyone, bye bye!

Noooooooooooooooooooooo, can't do it - might miss something interesting

.......back to Eleanor of Aquitaine and my debate writing.  Tch!

I can do this, I can..................................I'll just shrink it and pop back now and again...yes, that's it.........................

Well now, I have been reading ABE's post and a few of the comments thereon.  It kinda just happens to be going along with what I am doing at the moment with medieval queen Eleanor and the 2nd crusade

My partner, the hippy, bought me a book the other day entitled 'Holy War' by Karen Armstrong.  (The hippy is nothing if not vigorous in MY research!!)    The book sets out to debunk the 'romantic' notion of the Crusades and asks why it had all kicked off in the first place.  In my own personal opinion and it's the same conclusion that she expounds - is that it was nothing more than an exercise in greed for the Western Church and the ultimate control of the Levantine Basin.  Whoever controlled the Basin, controlled all known sea trade routes!  Oh, how much money and how much power???

Part of the introduction of the book says that '...in reality they [the Crusades] were a series of rabidly savage battles carried out in the name of Christian piety to advance the power of the Western Church.  Their legacy of religious violence is felt today as the age old conflict of Christians,Jews and Muslims persists' 

She goes on to say that there are constant reminders of that period left in the ruined castles and forts that still exist today and that...'The Crusading theme seemed to me to be somehow germane to both the modern conflict and the uneasy relationship that has existed over the years between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the three religions of Abraham'  She also says that those who live in the shadow of these Christian edifices, will never forgive the West for those Crusades.

So, not much chance of the three tribes forgiving each other then, for whatever perceived slight exists.  Therein lies the problem to any solution - ABSOLUTELY NO FORGIVENESS.  What then is the point of even trying?  The point as I see it is that: - isn't forgiveness a basic tenet of all these world religions?  Are they not disobeying some Divine Law by refusing to 'turn the other cheek?'  Or, do they act on the 'eye for an eye' principle?  You see, this is where MY basic problem lies with the Bible.  It's incredibly contradictory.  Just my opinion.

Now, despite being a pagan, I believe in god - what I don't believe is that 'HE' business.  Let's face it, whether the Jews, Christians or Muslims like it or not - it's only women who can create.  Not that I believe god is 'SHE' either.  At this point I could be positively 'Amazonian' about the whole thing and say that men are pretty much redundant in that - we have 15 generations in sperm banks, we have vibrators (and therefore don't have to look our best!), we earn our own living and can buy our own drinks.  Case closed!  Just kidding!  I mean, where would I be without my best friend and book buyer? 

Let's take the scene in the Garden of Eden - god created man from earth or clay.  He saw that it was good and created woman.  Fine, let's work with that one.  From what did he create woman?  Adam's rib - correct?  So, not from his ankle, or his head.  The way I see it therefore is that god created woman from Adam's side, to be by his side as an equal - not from his foot where she could be considered subserviant, nor from his head where she would be above him but from his side - 50/50.  This is another failing of interpretation.  Early Christians, Jews and Muslims have always treated women as second class citizens.  Time to wise up methinks.  In some respects, Christians have already done this, fortunately.  The more un-orthodox Jews and generations of Muslims born in the west have also done so.  Right, so religion can and does move with the times.  This means that those who belong to those religions can ALSO move with the times.  If they are tolerant of the changes in their religions, why not expand the whole tolerance ideal?  Obviously, there is some problem with 'cross' religion tolerance but to whom is it a problem?  Surely not god.  I would have thought it would be pleasing to god.  I further suspect Abraham would be a bit chuffed too.

Seems to me that the problems in the Middle East are not so much to do with religion and faith after all then.  Well, it can't be can it, if they're all denying their basic principles - so it must be about something else.  The hippy and ex-Jew is constantly at pains to remind me that it is ISRAEL and not the Jews.  I am constantly riposting why do all Jews say as greeting 'next year in Jerusalem'?  Obviously it means something to ALL Jews then and not just those who live in Israel.  Jerusalem means just as much to the Muslims and Christians, who also live there. 

It is therefore inevitable that someone is going to have to take a first step in forgiveness.  Centuries of fanatic hate is not going to go away in seconds but as a wise man once said, every journey starts with a single step.  Maybe the new world order in the USA can make inroads as it is unlikely to come from the source, blinded as they are by generations of tit for tat exchanges on the principle of an eye for an eye.  The history of the area is a melting pot of inaccuracies, interpretations, misinterpretations, anomalies and just downright lies but it is EXACTLY all this that any peacemaker is going to have to take into consideration.  You cannot arbitrarily dismiss thousands of years, like the high handed act of the UN in 1947 has already proved. 

Ultimately, the west don't have the answers to the Middle East problems but maybe, we can make suggestions to help them find their own way and to encourage them to find acceptable solutions, as a way of making amends for our part in their history.  What we simply cannot do any longer is demand compromises as we did before.  We have no business there other than to send aid and any other humanitarian assistance they ask of us.  They have to find their own way in a spirit of forgiveness and tolerance - after all, that is what god asks of all of us so why should location be an excuse for disregarding god's wishes? 

Unless of course, it is genuinely no longer about the will of god and is more about the will of man instead!  In which case, there are no grounds for using Biblical precedent as either an excuse or legal standing.

Just a few thoughts and opinions but certainly no answers *shrugs*

Pioneering feminist and renaissance woman OR
Wilful wife and mother?

Eleanor is portrayed as 3 things (if you have ever heard of her, of course!)

1.  Wife of Louis VII of France - The Capetian line
2.  Wife of Henry of Anjou - Angevin/Plantaganet line (Henry II) of England
3.  Mother of Richard I Lionheart and John Lackland (Magna Carta) - Plantaganet line

but, she was so much more...

The contemporary and later (vaguely) scholastic writings about Eleanor portray her as the latter, yet...in history you are taught to view the writings of contemporaries as slightly suspect with their own agendas.

The contemporary writings of which I speak come from the Church, abbots and self-styled chroniclers.  They were men and generally, the only gender taught to write or pretty much anything else for that matter!  One must therefore think carefully about what they say.  The Salic laws - laws dating back to the time of Charlemagne and which were determined by the Church - were designed to take as much power away from women as possible i.e. the laws of inheritance and the differences between private and public power held by women.  Good grief, it is alleged that the Church even tried to limit the power women had over their husbands in 'pillow talk'.  Humph!

Eleanor was a passionate campaigner (to the annoyance of the Church) against women being used as bargaining tools for political power.  Fair enough but to JUST say that is missing the big picture as men were also used to the same effect.  The game of thrones was heterosexual!!

In fairness, the Church faced a bit of a dichotomy - women represented both the fall of man i.e. Eve AND Mary, the mother of Jesus - problem!  How to reconcile the two??  Well, you can't ... so, in time honoured fashion it was made up as it went along.  Agreed, there was much debate about how to handle a woman - witness the song sung by Richard Harris about Katherine Hepburn as Henry II and Eleanor in the film A Lion in Winter but no REAL satisfactory conclusion was reached.  Note:  women who gave birth to boys, were not allowed to attend Church for about 6 months after the dirty business of birthing BUT women who gave birth to girls were not allowed in for a year or even two after the event.  Which begs the question of what they did when it was twins of the male and female variety (as opposed to any other variety of course!)

As I see it, the problem with Eleanor was this...she WAS educated, her father made sure of that.  So, a liberal man then - displeased the Church enough to have been excommunicated 19 times, along with his father before him!  He was a man who LOVED women and once said that if he had not been a Duke he would have made ample money seducing women!  Hmm!  Let's not go there...    He was a troubador and spent large amounts of time writing romantic songs and serenading unattainable women...apparently, that was the point, so he is clearly the author and solely responsible for the whole unrequited love scenario - wonderful.

Eleanor was brought up in the courts of southern France and was heiress to the Duchy of Aquitaine, at that time the biggest land holding in France...being as 'France' consisted of er...Paris and a small outlying area - yes,   truly.  Brought up in the courts of love and where women were the equal of men, taking part in political discussion and writing and playing musical instruments - hunting, hawking and archery - it's no wonder that as a relatively naive 15 year old, full of life and impulsiveness, she was vilified when she got to the stuffy French courts that were run by the clergy; her poor husband Louis (being the second son) had been brought up for a life in the Church and had never known anything other than a life of solitary time in prayer and reflection.  Instead of seeing her as a breath of fresh air, she was considered almost to have been the anti-Christ and the Church spent no time whatsoever in trying to turn her into a 'private' wife and mother.  A legacy that remained until the early 20th century and the suffragete movement.

Despite all of this imprisonment of mind and character and constant lectures on her duty to produce, Eleanor remained feisty and was once quoted as saying, to Abbot Suger, when he condemned her for not producing an heir - that it is quite difficult to conceive when one is married to a man who spends more time on his knees in prayer than he does in bed with me!  Quite so, unless he was hoping to reconcile the two faces of women with the seeming wantonness of his wife and aspiring to an immaculate conception and Virgin birth!!  She did some time later provide him with...oh, no   ...a daughter!  Marie.  However, it should be pointed out that there is absolutely NO doubt that Louis quite simply adored Eleanor and this also displeased the Church who were no doubt concerned about her influence on him - and frankly, rightly so as it turns out.

Louis was NOT a good king, where Eleanor was politically savvy and erudite, Louis retreated to the comforting arms of his closest advisor Abbot Suger.  He trusted Suger more than he trusted Eleanor and she was not a little put out by this - as you would be!  She was beautiful, vivacious, young and BORED.  She tried to bring the warmth and the happiness of the southern courts to Paris but she was hampered and denied at every turn by the Church.  Ironic when you now consider that Paris is supposed to be the city of lurve!

When Louis, without consulting Abbot Suger responded to the Pope's request for aid to mount a second crusade, Abbot Suger was horrified that the Queen would be left in charge of France (remember of course that France was a third of the size of Aquitaine, which she had continued to govern most successfully and with no problems thank you very much).  Imagine therefore the look on his face when he found out that far from being left behind as he had dreaded, Eleanor was going with! 

You see, Eleanor had at her command over 1,000 troops, which she would only promise to the cause if she commanded them.  Being the Duchess, legally only she COULD command them.  So, what was the Church to do?  Ignore the offered troops because it would mean a female commander or accept the troops as additional weapons agains the infidel?  Suger, decided that in order to hang on to the might of Aquitaine, allied to France, he could and did ignore the fact that she was inconveniently female.  So...

en avence...Eleanor got her way.  Deciding to take absolute advantage of this victory over the stodgy, mysogenistic clergy, she and 300 other ladies of the court, including many other queens, dressed as Amazons in armour, donned also the white shift with the red cross, mounted horses and travelled through France recruiting and raising money for the cause on the way.  A pageant indeed.  One can only imagine the horror on the faces of the clergy! 

Skirmishes, ambushes and in-fighting en-route depleted the force that arrived in the Holy Land.  Once there, she met again with her Uncle Raymond and she must suddenly have felt more at home for probably the first time in 13 years.  Many of the westerners who lived in the Holy Land had adopted the way of life, with silks and perfumes and exotic victuals and artwork and Eleanor was once again in her element.  She and her uncle grew close and, of course, Eleanor being Eleanor immediately became the source of gossip because of the closeness between her and her uncle which was naturally frowned upon by those clergy present.  Such demonstrations of familial enjoyment was indecent and so there must be more to it.  It was later written that Eleanor MUST have been having an affair with her uncle!  She may have been liberal but was she really that liberal?  I suspect there is no real answer to that. 

Eleanor was also an extremely accomplished tactician and agreed with her uncle that the best way to proceed was to capture another city (Edessa) as a fallback before going on to Jerusalem.  Louis however, who could not have been unaware of the gossip was having none of it and demanded that she attend to her wifely duties and bow to him.  Oh, dear. 

Eleanor pointed out the wisdom of her tactics but Louis as always bowed to the superior knowledge of the Church, because of course, they were supreme commanders of armed forces!  Military history today conceeds that if Louis had listened to Eleanor's advice, the second crusade would not have been the complete and utter failure it was.  Ultimately, Louis unwisely kidnapped Eleanor from the court of her uncle and proceeded to Jerusalem where they were effectively outnumbered and outsmarted.  Now there's an opportunity for I told you so if ever I saw one!!  Unsurprisingly, after the event, the failure of the Crusade was dumped squarely on Eleanor's shoulders, blaming her presence and her loose morals NOT on the stupidity of the advice given to the king and his patent ineptitude at commanding!  The end of the Crusade saw the ignominious retreat of the Franks.  Eleanor and Louis sailed for home separately, the Crusade and their marriage a failure.  Eleanor was horrified to find out she was pregnant and the failure of all else in her life was compounded by the birth of yet another daughter, Alix. 

Eleanor was by this time approaching her 30th birthday and probably felt that she had given the marriage a fair go.  She applied to have the marriage annulled.  Church said no (best Catherine Tate voice please!).  She tried again, this time on the grounds that they were actually cousins.  This time it worked.  Louis accepted this, as he was probably as fed up as Eleanor by then.  She allowed him custody of their daughters, provided he returned to her, unconditionally, the lands of Aquitaine.  Unusually, Louis agreed, having faith that she would be a good overlord to his kingship.  A BIG mistake that he would come to regret.

Eleanor was, as has previously been pointed out, not a fool.  She full well knew the dangers of being the wealthiest woman in western Christendom and that she was open to kidnap, ransom and even forced marriages.  So, she retreated to her home in Aquitaine and cast around, determined that this time it would be for love.  She had already met and fallen in love with Henry of Anjou (one of Louis' greatest opponents and second biggest overlord of Normandy) by this time.  The future alliance of Aquitaine with Normandy now effectively in the hands of the English King, eventually led to Louis downfall.  Eleanor and Henry married six weeks after her annullment, in secret, as technically, being a vassal overlord,  Eleanor would have needed the King of France's permission - bit difficult I would imagine with him being her ex an' all and of course, with the alliance of two of the greatest land holdings in France, it's unlikely that he would have said - oh, yes my dear, do go ahead!!  As a further poke in the eye to poor old Louis, five months later - yes, quite,    she produced a son, William - and continued producing offspring until the last one John was born when she was 43.  Note:  this was the average lifespan for most medieval women, so theoretically she should have been on her death bed not child bed!!!

By the time John was born, Henry and Eleanor had grown apart and unlike Louis, Henry was a philanderer (quaint innit?)  She had no problem with his private affairs but objected when they became public.  Things came to a head when Eleanor discovered that Henry had tried to seduce Richard's fiancee.  Oops!     Outraged at this (Richard being her favourite) she incited all her sons to rise against their father.  This is considered to be a BAD move on her part!! (Best Hitchikers voice please!) The coup failed and she was captured in her attempt to escape back to Aquitaine with her children.  Henry imprisoned her for the next 13 years and she was only released on his death by the then King Richard.

When Richard went off to the third crusade, she acted as regent but returned to Aquitaine and the courts of love.  She continued to be active in the lives of her sons and outlived Richard and nearly outlived John.  Eleanor died at the age of 84, an unheard of age of that time.  Two years previously she had crossed the Alps to go and get her grandaughter.  She eventually retired to the abbey at Fontevrault when she suffered ill health and where after a full and amazing life she died peacefully.  She is buried there between her husband Henry and her son Richard.

Note:  the fashions of courtly love invented by Eleanor's grandfather and father were perpetuated by her and became the Chivalric Code by which all knights of worth were expected to abide.

The stories of Eleanor and her courts are the ones that gave rise to Arthur and Guinevere by writers such as Chretienne de Troyes, a noble at the court of her eldest daughter Marie and Geoffrey of Monmouth in Britain.  It is alleged that Henry was flattered at being compared to such a warrior king of the Britons!

When Eleanor was regent for Richard and John usurped the throne alienating the barons and making silly laws,  Eleanor with a small band of soldiers and a lady in waiting, travelled the country, righting the wrongs John had committed, against the poor.  She did this incognito for fear of reprisals and she was described as wearing a robe n' hood!  19th century writer Walter Scott in Ivanhoe turned her deeds into those of a famous male and we all know what a pain HE was to the Sheriff of Nottingham, don't we children?  (Probably apocryphal but I liked it, I liked it!)

So, back to the question...was she a pioneering feminist and renaissance woman OR a wilful and disobedient wife and mother?

OR BOTH?

Hmm!

It could be argued that what Eleanor began resulted in further Church laws for the suppression of women as thinking, intelligent beings, little more than baby producers and definitely less than the sum of their ahem...parts!  Women continued to be used as pawns but so did men and that continued almost to the Victorian era.  There was definitely an impishness and stubbornness behind her refusal to conform but wilful?  She was passionate about the role of women and, in such a position of power, she could perhaps have done more to alleviate it.  If her father had lived and she had remained with him longer, would their combined strengths and belief in women have resulted in 'emancipation' sooner?  If Eleanor had been allowed just a little luxury of home in her dreary Paris castle on the Seine where the stench must have been horrendous in summer,  would she have proved more malleable to Church control?  Brought up educated and intelligent in relative freedom and with equality for women is it any wonder she rebelled against the constraints imposed upon her by mysogenistic clergy, who couldn't decide whether women were saints or sinners even in their own polemics and rhetoric laden papal correspondences and discussions?  So, if the omnipotent men of biblical proportion could not decide on the role of women, what chance did a mere woman have?

Right, now I have all this down in writing, I have to edit to bullet points and get a discussion in class where one takes the view of pioneer and the other wilful, which means bare facts unladen towards either side.  Can it be done I ask myself?  Rhetorically of course - 'cos if ANYONE has read this far, my advice would be go have a large alcoholic drink or six   Think I just might get one meself!  After all it is Saturday night and I'm stuck here doing this!!!!!!

Cheers [hic]

...and it really is.  Why is it not private then I hear you ask?  Well, 'cos selfishly I like to bounce ideas off my friends in blogland occasionally.

Firstly, I am perfectly well aware that in some instances you will have NO idea what I am talking about.  Fine, 'cos sometimes that makes you better for me (see, selfish again).

Prepare...

for rambling notes....

Comparisons:

Medieval History                                                                         Myth and Legend

Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine                       Arthur and Guinevere
Bernard of Clairveaux                                                                Merlin
Knights Templar                                                                         Knights of Round Table
Crusades                                                                                     Quests
Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem                                                   Holy Grail
Legends of Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table      Mabinogion - very OLDE WELSH(E) LEGEND                                        Written by Chretienne de Troyes c. 1130-ish                        Black Book of Carmathen, White Book of Rhydderch, Red Book of                                                                                                                   Hergest (written c.9th century)
(4 Books)                                                                                      (4 Branches)
Courtly Love                                                                                  Damsels in Distress

Just some jottings...feel a Masters Degree coming on...shame I'll never be able to afford it...sponsorship anyone?  Just kidding.  And don't get me started on the Cathars, Simon de bloody Montfort and the Albigensian Crusade...OR...Rennes le Chateau - should have written that book before Dan Brown! 

It's just that I was doing some research and chatting with partner and these similarities somehow became apparent.  Like BT says, it's good to talk

However, now that I have seen it written down, it's not going to work for a micro-teaching session of only 20 minutes - 20 years perhaps but DEFINITELY NOT 20 mins 

Also I am listening to lute and harp music...and I just get transported...I have definitely lived through the medieval period in a previous life!!!  Which probably explains the fact that I am an ageing gothic rock chick; why my study is lit with candles in wrought iron floor standing candelabras; why I have tapestries covering the walls, from floor to ceiling; medieval pictures all over the small blank walls; black lace and black silk on the windows and dragons everywhere...or not!  Could just be mad!

Wibble.  On that note, best take my remaining Canadian Rye and now very melted ice (so...water then) and take meself orf to bed...which is sadly NOT medieval, being a boring wood and wrought iron work job, admittedly king size but just lacking in the 'je ne sais quoi' department...oh I know, there's no canopy to stop the medieval rats falling on my head...that'll be it!!!

Slightly tipsy note taking over...must away as the elves are calling...

Good night all and

if you got this far...award yourselves a medal

Blessed be all xxx   

Yesterday, I had my first peer assessment lesson evaluation!  I was the last

That's it I thought...most of them hated history in school so will all probably be asleep by the time it comes to me.  Oh, well I said to myself, at least the feedback will be silent and/or snores!!  So, my name gets called and I go to stand, only to find that my legs were not a-willing to oblige.  Made it to the front without undue problem as there were plenty of desks to lean on en-route.

Managed to get my datastick in without breaking anything and then started my presentation.  Personally, I thought I was absolute cr*p, so when I found them asking me all sorts of questions, I was stunned.  Basically I did a presentation on Medieval History - Well, I never knew that.  You know, sort of sorting fact from fiction.  Told them that - contrary to popular 19th century mysogenistic methods of teaching - women DID indeed exist in the medieval period and were even quite powerful - Eleanor of Aquitaine to name THE most powerful person of Medieval History (in my opnion, before anyone gets antsy about it).  Anyway to cut a long story short, one of the nicest comments I had was...'Well, if they'd taught me that sort of thing in school, instead of the Second World War ad nauseum, I would have carried on with it'.  The other one was 'I've been looking forward to that all day, 'cos I love that sort of thing'.  Awww innit nice? 

I did funny but true if obscure facts about the Romans, Anglo Saxons, Christianity, Vikings, Lady Godiva and the Normans - all bullet pointed and illustrated.  When I had finished, the assessor asked me if I would change anything - yes I promptly replied probably all of it.  The feedback from my peers was all positive and polite but they'd been like that all day anyway - oh, I'm such a cynic.

When I looked at my lesson evaluation I nearly fainted and I am just so stunned.  So, I am now going to bore you, share with you what she said:

General Comments on Preparation:
Clear and suitable objectives provided.  Lesson plan appropriate and detailed.  Very well presented.  Students given a questionnaire at the beginning of the lesson in order that they could note answers during the lesson.  Power Point used to very good effect with great images!  Well Done.  Some of the slides were a little too detailed.  (True, they were but I didn't want too many slides, so packed them - in hindsight, more space would have been better as they were a little hard to read! 20/20 vision in hindsight - tch!!)

Satisfactory:  2    Good:  6    Very Good:  1

General Comments on Presentation:
Assessed prior learning and knowledge through a Question and Answer session.  Students invited to suggest reasons for happenings in history.  Your extensive knowledge of history was obvious from the outset.  You are a natural story teller Elizabeth, making your coverage of the history between 5th and 11th centuries very interesting and entertaining.  You used humour to lighten what might otherwise have been a heavier lesson.  You engaged with the learners very well throughout the session.  You recapped well and enthused the learners to want to learn more.    (I did?  ) 
Very Well Done Elizabeth!  Her underline!!!!!

Satisfactory: 9   Good:   7   Very Good:   1

Who?  Me?   

Walking out later that night with a colleague, I was saying how difficult it was not being in a teaching environment and the assessor was walking down behind us.  I mentioned going home and getting drunk.  She asked me what I meant about not being in a teaching environment and I said I had never, ever done anything like that before.  She then said I should not be going home to get drunk, rather I should be going home and opening a bottle of champagne.  She said I was a natural!

Why is there no emoticon for Cloud 9? 

  I'm expecting to wake up any minute now!

...please!

Have to do a micro-teaching session and want to do it on 'pre-conceptions' of the medieval period.  I have 20 minutes in total.  Introducing subject, lesson aim and objective should take up 5 minutes and q & a session at the end should take a further 5, so in total I have 10 mins or thereabouts!  Thought I would start with a bit of a q & a to find out how much they know about the subject.  Most people know more than they think but do they know the right ones or is it myth and legend? 

As the medieval period pretty much covers 5th to 15th centuries, it's a pretty broad subject but mine is the bit from the middle to the end really from Hastings to Bosworth ie 11th to 15th (much easier to digest!)  'Owever, I thought I would do it from the beginning so to speak when the Romans left, then the Anglo Saxons came, then the Scandinavians and finally those flippin' Normans.  Thought I would debunk some myths and give them some new potted facts instead.  How does that sound?  Like did Alfred really burn cakes?  Vikins and horned helmets?  The myth of the Doomsday Book and then finish with the First Crusade in 1097, keeping the rest for my next micro-teaching, where I will be video'd.  Ye gads but I feel I'm dying inside already!  I am absolutely terrified that I will not keep their attention for five seconds let alone 10 minutes!

Performing on stage is much easier as you are playing a part...standing in front of a class of your peers as yourself is the scariest thing next to your driving test!

Oh bugger, I can't think about this anymore, I'm turning to jelly and I won't get a bloody thing done...you can see how stressed I am by the use of bad language instead of er...better language 

Best get on with it I s'pose, procrastination just delays the inevitable.

On the subject of procrastination (here I go.......)  just thought I would share the opening chapters of a book I am reading because, well, frankly, I'm reading it because I am a masochist and sharing it because I'm a sadist!   Course, you lot don't have to read it but now that I've bought it I am honour bound to read the damn thing...

"...that the period was governed by the square root of the length of the wire and by pi, that number which, however irrational to sublunar minds, through a higher rationality binds the circumference and diameter of all possible circles.  The time it took the sphere to swing from end to end was determined by an arcane conspiracy between the most timeless of measures: the singularity of the point of suspension, the duality of the plane's dimensions, the triadic beginning of pi, the secret quadratic nature of the root and the unnumbered perfection of the circle itself."

Well, I knew that, didn't you?

As I have quoted I best reference...'Foucault's Pendulum' by Umberto Eco p.3

I think I have just had some therapy and my lesson plan doesn't look quite so bad now

Blessings all xxx

...I've tired meself out now with my sparkling wit and repartee and my multifaceted grammar lesson for tomorrow, also full of sparkles *yawns*

"Wassat?"  Oh, that's me bed calling my name.  I am now off to fall asleep whilst reading the Saced History of Britain to the tune of two purring cats and a leg warmer in the shape of Dog Dante, the yellow Inferno Golden Lab x Staffy Bull.

G'night all, sweet dreams

and

...they're trying to sell me something or, in this case, are so foreign I have absolutely no hope in hell of being able to understand them!  Must have been a slip of his typing finger!

Bless.

Can't understand why it came up with not found before - did it again to check just to be sure and there he was...wholly and completely and utterly Deutsch and wholly and completely and UN utterably incomprehensible to Ich!

In the 6 jahr I lived in Deutschland, I learned to say* the following, not in any particular order you understand

Eine beer bitte, danke, ja, nein, Ich bin (ein Berliner - no, no, just kidding!) du bist, ich sprechen kleine Deutsch und Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles!

Before anyone goes off on my spelling, please read the disclaimer* tch!  Pedants!  No really, I did not mean peasants, I meant pedant honest.

Oh well, back to my lesson plan for tomorrow's ESOL lesson *yawn*

Ooo, ooo, I got my first assignment back from my course, I got a Merit...there's Distinction, Merit, Pass, something else and Fail...took me a while to realise that M didn't mean Mediocre   Must be getting the hang of this teaching lark then!

*Woot* 

...why is it that I get these invitations to join someone's blog community and, when I go to look at who they are     there's no one there!? 

Is my blog haunted?

Enquiring minds wish to know!

I've not noticed any poltergeist activity here on my blog site before - unlike *grrr* facebook - where people I know constantly fling and zing things at me and invite me to join bizarre war battle thingies.  Tch, I'm too old for facebook, let's be honest...and, despite the fact that all my friends actually have my e-mail address, they would prefer to byte me on facebook - no, it's not a spelling error, it's sarcasm!!!

Seems I'm beginning the year as a grumpy old woman!  Well, damn it if it's good enough for The Female Eunuch it's good enough for yours truly - humph!

Is it too late for a mite more Bah Humbug?

...over and done with and I for one am delighted!

Now that it is all over and done with I can feel a deep down in my bones sigh escaping.  It isn't that I don't like the festive season, I just feel that most of it is a little false.  Perhaps because I have such little family that I don't have the buzz others do when they go off hunting for presents.  My present hunting this year was over in the space of 15 minutes.  Yes, I know...go figure.

So not for me the pushing and shoving of the madding crowds, more the that will do and let's have a sherry!  I hasten to add that it is the ONLY time of year I drink sherry and it has to be Tio Pepe - dry enough to turn your head inside out!  Just like drinking liquid sandpaper.  Yum.

A visit to the few relatives and duty over it was time to settle down and enjoy - which I did, vaguely.  Some enjoyment was marred by the fact that the hippy worked everynight from Boxing Night onwards, up to and including New Year's Eve.

As he has worked the last five New Year's Eve nights and I have stayed at home alone, I decided that this year, I would throw caution to the winds and go out - BAD IDEA!  I got incredibly drunk, ranted at a few people, one who stole my chair 'cos she thought I was too drunk to notice, one at someone I know was stealing my drinks and in general at anyone who would listen that the person who had booked the entertainment for the evening should be hung, drawn and quartered.  Good grief, even when drunk I'm a complete medievalist - torture anyone?  It took me the better part of the night to realise it was actually a stage show and not someone simply hogging a kareoke machine.  Yes people, it was THAT bad.  So I muttered about it, causing much hilarity and oops an upset singer who overheard what I had said.  Now, now, you know what they say about listeners...so...I spent the majority of New Year's Day, hungover, shaky, upset at the singer hearing what I'd said...'cos in fairness she really could sing and I didn't mean it badly...grouchy at my partner for being so nice, kind and loving towards me when I felt I didn't derserve it - and it served me bloody well right.  Now I REMEMBER why I don't go out on New Year's Eve!

So...New Year's resolutions then?  Well, just the one...same as it is every year...simply be the best person I can be...that will include no getting drunk to the tune of alcohol then?  Well, yes. 

Now the advent of normality is looming and University and work beckon...dammit!  I will have to disrobe the tree and put all my lovely decorations away for another 51 weeks.  For months it will leave a tree shaped hole in my sitting room, until the time to unwrap it comes around again and I spend ages thinking where I will put it this year!  Doh!  Now that it is all over, I could quite happily dispense with January and February weather and move straight into spring thank you...I dream of warm, balmy breezes with the scent of earth and oh, sorry, I appear to have gone off on one.  Apologies!

It seems that now the really bad weather will kick in and I will dread the cold and the driving through usually ungritted country lanes - ah the delights of country living in the middle of harsh winters!  and do you know what, I can't find my gloves anywhere, or my hat and scarf!  Mind you, I don't know about anyone else but I can't drive when dressed like the Michelin man and my gloves always slip on the steering wheel - tch, what a whinge!

Well, on a brighter note, I would like to congratulate Sir Terry Pratchett for his appearance in the New Year's Honours List - my thanks to Shipscook for this information as bereft of telly, I am frequently bereft of news that is worthy!  Also to Robert Plant...about time too!  The words of these men are sometimes the voices of my gods and I tend to listen

Finally, with a bloody awful ICT in Education Assignment tucked nicely away on CD for handing in tomorrow, I can indulge in wishing you all a VERY HAPPY NEW YEAR IN 2009 and I hope you all get what you wish for yourselves.

Blessed be all xxx

lunadraconis