Skip to main content

naming and shaming

in order to help deal with the anxiety that comes from moving, unpacking and everything else that has been going on in the last few weeks, i've put a little time into my continuing study of genealogy. this is an ongoing process for me, because i'm ultimately determined to find out how i came by every single strand of dna in my body. but it's also a regular, calming activity that chiefly involves data entry into an extremely large tree. my discoveries in recent weeks have been enlightening, but they've brought to my attention the rather peculiar practice of nicknaming that was common among my ancestors [and probably yours too].

i understand the need for these nicknames. back in those days, every family seemed to have about six names that they used, so, if you were talking about your cousin john, chances are that there were at least eight or nine individuals who fit the bill. furthermore, since everyone was marrying their cousins and producing children that bore a striking resemblance to everyone else in the family, and no one in the landowning class [the only people whose records have been preserved] had any kind of job to use as a reference point, you generally had to identify people by something specific and memorable.

in my family history, like a lot of others, those points of identification are usually related to an anomalous fact about their appearance. for instance:

'the towheaded' - referring to someone who was so blond as to appear almost white-haired. there are a few of those, in different branches and different generations, and i imagine that a number of people with scottish/ scandinavian ancestry have a few 'towheaded' people in their past [or present], but apparently it was good enough to distinguish from among sixteen people named harold at the family reunion.

some of the nicknames were pretty swell: 'the great' [alfred, arnulf and charles] or 'the wise' [yaroslav]. others have meanings that probably made sense at the time, like 'the black' or 'the red'. hair, maybe? and others were used to describe those people who did things besides riding around on horseback killing others, such as 'the abbott' or 'the mayor'. for some reason, abbotts and mayors didn't seem to require other nicknames, but kings did.

the carolingian kings of france, from whom i'm directly descended in about fourteen different ways [if you have any european blood in you, chances are charlemagne banged a distant relative], were prone to giving everyone who occupied the throne a sobriquet. for instance:

pepin 'the short' - that seems a bit rich, considering that most franks were just a little over five feet tall, and the guy was a king, but it's not nearly as bad as how his grandfather-in-law got labeled...

pepin 'the fat' - i'm sure that, in the early middle ages, 'fat' was a pretty good thing to be... meant you could survive winter... yeah, that's it...

in fact, there are several names related to physical appearance that aren't very nice at all.

"crook nose"
"speckled" [i'm guessing that means "freckled", but they picked the worst possible way of saying it]
"the bald" [there are several notable bald men in my family history, apparently]
"white leg"

and some of the nicknames seem pretty bad ass:

"the outlaw"
"the battler"
"the haughty"
"the venomous"
"the fratricide"
"the bastard" [not the only bastard in the family, in any sense"]
"bloodaxe"

while others are sort of wimpy:

"the meek"
"the mild"
"the unready"

but one in particular stands out among all these names:

eystein "the fart"

the easiest assumption is that the offending word didn't mean the same thing then that it did now, but geoffrey chaucer used the term to mean exactly what it means today in the canterbury tales", so the fact is that "fart" has meant "fart" for centuries.

this raises many questions, none of which are answered in historical texts. the man was king of a large tract of norway. he was part of the oldest line of scandinavian kings, who ruled both sweden and norway for hundreds of years. he was supposedly killed by a fucking warlock who blew the unfortunate eystein off his boat.

and yet, he is remembered for... i mean, how bad could this thing possibly have been that it eclipsed all else that he did in his life? it's not even as if he's remembered as "the farter", like he used to toot his own horn as a party trick or something. the name implies one singular explosion that blew every other accomplishment out of the water.

so, great great great something grandfather [or grandfarter], thank you for justifying my sense of anxiety that people will only remember the embarrassing, stupid things i do when i'm gone.

as for the rest of you, who want to seek out the strange secrets that lie in your family's past... you probably shouldn't.

p.s. :: it's not hereditary, i swear. 

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …