FinermanWorks

On this day in 987, King Louis V–known as the Do-Nothing–did not live up to his name. In fact, he did not live, and so finally accomplished something. So ended his one year rule, his twenty-year life and his 236-year dynasty. He, the last of the Carolingian kings of France, was beset by foreign invasion (the Holy Roman Emperor, his first cousin) and rebellions by the nobles (second and third cousins). Louis really did not get along with anyone in his family; his mother poisoned him.

So, that leaves you with this question: Which French King did inspire the song “Louie, Louie.” Well. let’s consider all the Royal Lou’s of France and which one would be an oversexed stoner.

Louis XVIII could have used a mistress. He disliked his Italian wife but his chief outlets were self-pity and food.

Louis XVII was merely a child when he died. The French Revolutionary guardians did take meticulous care of the young boy–but definitely not for his benefit.

Louis XVI suffered from sexual dysfunction–and Viagra wouldn’t have helped. It was some sort of physical blockage. The only solution was surgery. Despite the quality of 18th century surgery, Louis survived the procedure and was even cured. He finally was able to consummate his marriage. However, that was also the limit of his libido.

Louis XIV was short, unattractive but apparently irresistible. (Royalty frequently is; who dares refuse.) There is a famous story of the Queen, and three of her ladies-in-waiting riding in a coach; they were all pregnant by Louis (although not from the same coach ride). So Louis was certainly was over-sexed but he still found the time to rule rather well. And he never would have referred to Versailles as a pad or crib.

Louis XIII had a very active sex life, but not with women. What is the male equivalent of a mistress? (Historians can only speculate as to the identity of Louis XIV’s father.) Louis Treize was the Baroque equivalent of a stoner. Fortunately for him and France, Cardinal Richelieu made a brilliant dealer.

Louis XII had three wives, so he wouldn’t have had time for mistresses.

Louis XI was too cheap to have mistresses.

Louis X died young; he was likely poisoned by a sister-in-law who managed her husband’s career. (Yes, he got to be king.)

Louis IX was Saint Louis, so mistresses are out of the question.

Louis VIII was married to a Spanish gorgon; he wouldn’t have dared.

Louis VII had the disposition of a monk. His first wife–Eleanor of Aquitaine–cheated on him.

Louis VI was known as Louis the Fat. Guess his vice.

Louis V, alias the Do-Nothing, you’ve already met.

Louis IV, alias Louis the Alien (he was raised in England), was so powerless that he couldn’t afford a mistress.

Louis III died at 19, so he didn’t even have a nickname.

Louis II, the Stammer, lived to be 33 but his health was as bad as his pronunciation. Even if he had been in better shape, late 9th century France was not a conducive time for hedonism. It was barely conducive for subsistence.

Louis I was called the Pious. That nickname would deter most aspiring mistresses.

So, who does that leave….Louis XV was handsome, charming and conscientiously incompetent. Usually the inept are unaware of their debilities, but Louis knew precisely how hapless he was and he didn’t care! He let his mistresses run and ruin France. (Madame de Pompadour was a complete disaster–or a brilliant secret agent for the British). If Handel or Haydn had composed “Louie, Louie”, the song definitely would have been about le Quinze.

George Savarin de Marestan (Monsieur le Baron to the obsequious) has found the French & Indian War to be profitable. (Louis XV should have been so lucky.) The Baron has been engaged to participate in all the major reenactments of the 250th anniversary of that 18th century war. Fort William Henry surrendered to him last year. He will win the battle of Fort Carillon (alias Ticonderoga) this summer. Next year, he is going to lose Quebec. In other words, he is impersonating the Marquis de Montcalm.

How did he earn this unique niche? In exactly the same way he became a baron, Monsieur de Marestan was born to the role. He happens to be the great, great, great, great, great, etc. nephew of General Montcalm. I can not vouch whether he is the most talented member of the Montcalm clan or just the most shameless. However, he does seem to be the only one in the Montcalm market. The general had ten children–and some of them must have survived 18th century medicine as well as the French Revolution.

For the reenactment of the battle of Quebec, a great, great, great, etc. nephew of General Wolfe also has been engaged. However distant a nephew, that may be the best that the historical societies could do. James Wolfe had no direct descendants, not for lack of trying, but women kept turning down his marriage proposals. For the victor of Quebec, a date with destiny was easier than a date with women.

I wonder if there are similar reenactments for the 250th anniversary of the Seven Years War. (The American war was just a sideshow for the main event. Did you really think that Frederick the Great was losing sleep over Fort William Henry?) Any number of unemployed princes could be invited to impersonate their ancestors. For an extra Euro, a Hapsburg, Bourbon or Romanov will sign your copy of “The Last of the Mohicans.” The descendants of George II are still employed; so they will either sign it for free or have you arrested.

By the way, if you know of any 70th anniversary commemorations for the film Ninotchka, I am a fourth cousin, twice removed, of Melvyn Douglas–and I am available.

The Republican National Committee has denounced Barack Obama for his “callous indifference to the history of the Jewish people.” This sharp attack was based on Sen. Obama’s revelation that he had not seen the last episode of ‘Seinfeld’.

“It is tantamount to denying the Holocaust” exclaimed William Kristol. “The series ended with Jerry, Elaine, George and Kramer sitting in a jail cell. They could been awaiting deportation to a death camp in Poland. And did Senator Obama also conveniently forget to watch the last episode of ‘Friends’, not caring whether or not David Schwimmer and Elliot Gould might be murdered. What is Barack Obama missing: television episodes or basic decency?”

The Obama campaign denied the accusation, asserting that the Senator was a Trekkie and long considered the Vulcans to be Jewish. This explanation did not placate Senator Joseph Lieberman: “I’ve always identified with the Ferengi.” William Kristol remained equally skeptical. “If Obama really wants to prove that he is not an Anti-Semite, he should have an affair with Barbara Walters.”

If you had looked at Napoleon’s resume in early 1796, you would wonder why he had command of an army–even a third-rate one guarding the Italian border. The 26 year-old really did not have much of a war record. In 1794, as an artillery captain, he had distinguished himself in recapturing the French port of Toulon from French royalists and the British. France was so desperate for capable officers that he was subsequently promoted to brigadier general. Then, in 1795, as the security chief for the French government he did quell a riot in Paris. But what had he done to merit the command of L’Armee d’Italie? To be blunt, he had married the right woman.

Josephine was Napoleon’s first great conquest. She was lovely, charming, aristocratic, a leading figure in high society, and the mistress of the most important man in France. No, not Napoleon; That distinction–both political and venereal–belonged to Paul Barras. The leading politician in the fading days of France’s first republic, Barras (1755-1829) was a remarkable renegade. Born an aristocrat, he was a Jacobin when was it was popular, and Conservative when it was prudent. A lesser man–or a more ethical one–would have been guillotined by one faction or another. But not Barras, he survived and thrived. Now, he was the leader of the Directory, the five-man executive board that governed France. The position came with obvious perks–bribes and mistresses–but even venality has its responsibilities.

A glamourous–but aging–mistress like Josephine could not be just debauched and abandoned like a chambermaid. Dumping her required French finesse. But Barras had a retirement package for her: marriage to an ambitious little (literally) social-climber. He encouraged the match, telling Josephine that the brusque Corsican had a promising future (he did) and telling Napoleon that the lovely widow had a fortune (she didn’t). Even if Josephine’s wealth was a fable, she did have a glamour and a bearing that would elevate the social standing of any grasping upstart.

And there was a nice wedding present from Barras: the command of an army. As you know, Napoleon made good use of it. At this point, his resume became very impressive: the very definition of an over-achiever. In a few years, the new ruler of France would present Barras with a very thoughtful retirement present. Barras would be under house arrest but, having amassed a number of mansions, he could vary his confinement from one palace to another.

When Napoleon fell, the still versatile Barras was a royalist again. For some reason, the restored Bourbons did not trust Barras. He would never regain political power, but he was also spared any retaliation for his past duplicity and corruption. During his five years in power (1794-1799) he must have stolen a fortune; two decades later, he was still loaded. When it came to bribery, Barras was as much an overachiever as Napoleon ever was.

Today is the official feast day of St. Matthias. I would tell you all about him, but the Church itself is rather bewildered on the subject. The Gospels are unaware of him, but he is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles as being chosen to replace Judas Iscariot–who obviously lost his tenure as a saint. The Church’s Board of Directors felt that it needed a 12th apostle. Unfortunately, the resurrected Jesus had failed to hire anyone; no doubt, He was preoccupied with packing for His Ascension. So, the Board of Directors picked Matthias (which is more than can be said for St. Paul).

And that ends the history. Of course, theological etiquette requires a few legends about him. For instance, the nature of his death is a buffet of choices. He was either killed by Jews in Jerusalem, pagans in Georgia or cannibals in Ethiopia. (The theological affiliation of the cannibals is unspecified; they could have been Christians who took communion too literally.) And he is also reported to have died of old age in Jerusalem–but that is too boring to be plausible.

Matthias at least is kept busy being the patron saint of alcoholics. If your life were a perpetual fog, you would want a saint in a similar condition.

The New York Times has a preconception of me. Forsakened in the Midwestern wilderness, I am presumed to be unibrowed, toothless and married to a first cousin. My Masters’ degree–being only from Northwestern–must be in manual labor. Yes, I do vote Democratic–as the Times would wish–but it is only because my unibrowed, toothless alderman promised me a garbage can lid, which I would use as a plate and an umbrella.

So imagine the shock to my drooling neanderthal sensibilities to read the Times article on the dynamic, presidential, charismatic Rod Blagojevich. (Apparently, Senator Obama does not have a monopoly on those adjectives.) That glowing description of Illinois’ governor is all the surprising because I don’t know anyone who likes him. Blagojevich is sleazy, corrupt, incompetent and abrasive. The governor has practically institutionalized bribery. His Republican predecessor went to prison for corruption–and he was more subtle. Blagojevich even has a bad haircut; a page boy does not suit his fifty-year old head. The man is a Democrat but I would gladly vote against him.

Unfortunately, the Republican party of Illinois cannot decide whether it is dead or just surreal. Its last senatorial candidate was Alan Keyes, who lives in Maryland. (Yes, but he was a documented migrant worker.) The party’s senior statesman is the Presbyterian Ru Paul; who knew that kilts came in hot pink! Against the execrable Blagojevich, the G.O.P. slated a lady who looked like she owned 18 cats and never seemed quite sober. The National G.O.P. has simply written off Illinois, at least until the Second Coming and Lincoln’s resurrection (although Lincoln now would be a Democrat.) In other words, we are stuck with Blagojevich–at least until he decides to run for President.

So what does the New York Times see in him that evidently escaped the notice of everyone in Illinois? He is not “IVY” and he did not name his children for his favorite characters from Proust. Perhaps incompetence, corruption and outlandish hair are post-modernist irony. I have long suspected the Times despises the “people:” Government of the vulgar, by the vulgar and for the vulgar. Now it is no longer a suspicion.

When it is not threatening to go bankrupt, the Social Security Administration occupies itself with compiling statistics. You probably are not interested in the date of your projected death, so here is the list of the most popular names of new-born children.

For kindergarten classes in 2012, the most monotonous monikers will be Jacob, Emily, Michael, Isabella, Ethan, Emma, Joshua, Ava, Daniel and Madison. You etymologists will note that the boys’ names are all Hebrew. For some reason, the ancient Hebrew ad agencies just were not as good at female names. Bathsheba and Abishag never caught on. Miriam did–but only after some cosmetic editing into Mary. (God presumably had the omniscience not to implant the Holy Spirit into the Virgin Zipporah; that would have undermined Christianity’s appeal.)

Furthermore, the social security’s database goes back to the 1880s.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/babynames/

Now you can find out how unoriginal your name was when you were born. Learn the passing fads of names.

For instance, Clarence was one of the more popular names of 1900. And no one thought of naming a daughter Madison until the 1980s. Herman was the 50th most popular boy’s name in 1908; it now is the 979th. Gee, I wonder if any historical events made the name less endearing. (No, Adolf hasn’t made the top 1000 since 1928.)

In fact, I had to wonder how the popularity of the name George has fared over the past 8 years. Nero once had been a popular Roman name, but one psychotic emperor apparently ruined its appeal. Had the worst president in American history given George a bad name? Of course, you have to be willing to believe any statistics from the Bush administration, but the name George is still surprisingly popular. In 2007, it was the 147th most common name among newborn males. Seven years of unsurpassed incompetence, correction and malevolence have only had a marginal effect on the name. In 2000, George was the 130th most popular name for infant boys.

Furthermore, Bush policies may have had an insidious influence on the names of children. Over the last eight years, there has been a surge of infant boys named Rex and King.

In any case, have fun with the website. (Type in the name Mahmud or Ahmed at your risk.)

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Lord Acton hadn’t written that for a Mother’s Day card, but it could have been appropriate. Royalty does not tend to make good parents. You could ask Prince Charles…or his sons, and they are dysfunctional at a time when they are only pampered mannekins. Imagine what they would be perpetrating on each other if real power were at stake. (Prince Philip found impaled on polo mallet…. Prince Charles belatedly discovers that many poisons are organic vegetables.)

But on this day, we should pay special tribute to some of the worst mothers in royal history:

Being the sister of Caligula, Agrippina the Younger (A.D. 15-59) was brought up thinking that incest was a form of positive reinforcement. Unfortunately, her son Nero really did not need any further encouragement. Indeed, dating Mom may have spoiled him where other women were concerned. He had one wife suffocated and personally kicked to death a second–who was pregnant at the time. And he proved to be an unappreciative son; he had Agrippina murdered although he first attempted to make him look like an accident. However, most drowning victims don’t have stab wounds.

The Empress Irene (752-803) might be one reason that the Byzantines have a bad reputation. She had been selected in a beauty contest to be the wife of the Byzantine crown prince. (Doesn’t this already sound like an Aaron Spelling script?) In time, the prince became the Emperor Leo IV–but not for very long. His abrupt death at the age of 30 might seem suspicious. In any case, Irene became the regent for her son, Constantine VI. But, due to the inconveniently high standard of Byzantine life and medicine, Constantine grew up to rule in rule in his right–but not for very long. In 797 Irene had her son blinded and deposed; being patriotic, she was willing to occupy the now vacant throne. How did the world respond to this crime? The Pope sent his congratulations, and the social-climbing Charlemagne offered to marry her.

What happens when you have two children and only one kingdom? What is a mother to do? Isabeau of Bavaria (1370-1435), the Queen Mother of France, thought that there was a practical solution. Her son Charles was repulsive and powerless; her daughter Catherine was more likable and also the Queen of England, married to the repulsive but powerful Henry V. In fact, English armies were occupying half of France and Henry had forced the French to acknowledge him as the next king of France, following the long awaited death of Isabeau’s husband Charles VI. To Henry’s surprise, however, he died first. Then Charles VI died. That raised the question of who should succeed to the French throne: Isabeau’s son or her half-English grandson, Henry VI. Isabeau decided that she preferred her grandson, and then announced that her son Charles was illegitimate. She couldn’t deny his maternity–too many people had noticed her pregnancy–but she certainly could dispute his paternity. Isabeau declared that Charles VI was not the father of the French claimant, and so her son had no right to the throne. Of course, Isabeau was counting on a comfortable English pension for her efforts, but how many other women would confess to to being whores just to spite a child? (If disinherited by his mother, at least the dauphin was adopted by Joan of Arc.)

But let’s conclude this on an uplifting note: Catherine the Great (1729-1796) despised her son Paul and insinuated to him that his paternity was an open question; yet, if only out of etiquette, she could not bring herself to disinheriting him. I guess that makes her this list’s Mother of the Day.

On this day in 1794 Antoine de Lavoisier was guillotined for treason. This may have been one of the greatest senior pranks, and certainly got the students out of taking their chemistry finals. Actually, “The Father of Modern Chemisty” never taught the subject; so he was not the victim of irate students. His vindictive enemies were the taxpayers of France.

Unlike a modern professor who would supplement his income by forcing the students to buy his books or sitting as an unctuous cipher on a corporate board, Lavoisier earned money as an extortionist. Mind you, his racket was sanctioned by the French Crown; he had paid the government up front for his extortionist permit. The specific term for the racket was “tax farming.” A tax farmer would pay the Crown for the right to collect taxes in a specified region. The similarity of the words franc and franchise is no coincidence. The more money the tax farmer collected–no questions asked about the tactics–the more he got to keep. You might be surprised but very few philanthropists applied for the position.

Perhaps the squeezed subjects in Lavoisier’s territory should have been gratified to know that they were subsidizing his scientific research. It was not as if he was spending their money on luxurious carriages and young mistresses. Unfortunately, the French taxpayers might have been more sympathetic about that.

Irvine Robbins, co-founder of Baskin-Robbins, is now a root bier float. Of course, I am inconsolable. If you want one difference between Shintoism and Judaism, I am not expect to disembowel myself with an ice scoop. But I may do so anyway. The closest I have come to being a gigolo–so far–is that in college I dated a lady who worked at Baskin-Robbins. Is it a coincidence that we broke up soon after she quit that job?

And here is another reason for grief. I am now paying as much for one gallon of gasoline as it once cost to fill up the tank. I am experiencing similar pain in the price of soda and ice cream (the staples of my life). Karen assures me that the other food items–the things that mature adults are supposed to eat–are also increasingly expensive.

Yet, according the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there is no over-all increase in inflation. Now, why would I have any reason to doubt the honesty or accuracy of the Bush adminstration? I am sure that the government statistics reflect some unique calculations. For example, the price of furniture has not increased over the last year. So, we savvy savers can buy a bed equipped with wheels, use the frame as a vehicle and eat the mattress.

Furthermore, the statistics tell us that there are some great bargains down there. The price of many stocks have gone down. A share of Ford or Bear-Stearns is less than a pound of steak. (In fact, those companies may soon be competing with the price of chicken.). Why, the dollar itself is a bargain: just 50 percent of what it used to cost. Ask any foreigner–he’ll agree after he stops laughing.