Armistice And Feminism

 Is there a connection?

Yesterday it was Armistice/Veteran's Day (in the USA). We don't celebrate it in my country because we had good sense not to fight.

The main result of "the war to end all wars" was the destruction of the European Christian civilisation, but also the fall of European monarchies, Weimar Republic and the female emancipation, of course. We all know about flappers with their short skirts and short hair, but it really started during the war itself, when women started working in factories (because men left for the front), and driving ambulances under enemy fire to prove a point. There was also that shameful white feather campaign for which the British government rewarded women with the voting rights (still restricted for some time, if I remember correctly).

Well, our men didn't leave, so our women didn't work in those factories and we could keep our traditional way of life a little bit longer. We also didn't sacrifice the whole generation of young men for the imperial ambitions.

Sometimes the only way to win is not to fight. 

Alcoholism Will Kill You

 Even when you are Alexander the Great (just finished reading a book about him):

The conclusion Gerasimidis has reached after decades of research is that Alexander the Great died of acute pancreatic necrosis. This condition is believed to have been caused by cholelithiasis, or gallstones, in combination with a heavy meal and a large quantity of wine.

I was kinda taught he died of typhoid fever, but now they are saying otherwise. Keep in mind that this guy survived pneumothorax caused by a spear (or maybe an arrow, I forget which) through his lung a couple of years before, without modern medicine. He also survived many other injuries, acute pneumonia, years of heavy fighting etc only to die at 32 from too much alcohol and fat in his diet.

Many of these "died suddenly" cases conspiracy theorists love to talk about are explained very simply by drugs or alcohol or the combination of the two.

Infanticide Is Nothing New

 and it is tied to the decline of religion, morals and female emancipation:

Greek women participated actively in the cultural pursuits of the time, and contributed to letters, science, philosophy, and art. Aristodama of Smyrna gave recitals of her poetry throughout Greece, and received many honors. Some philosophers, like Epicurus, did not hesitate to admit women into their schools. Literature began to stress the physical loveliness of woman rather than her worth and charm as a mother; the literary cult of feminine beauty arose in this period alongside the poetry and fiction of romantic love. The partial emancipation of woman was accompanied by a revolt against wholesale maternity, and the limitation of the family became the outstanding social phenomenon of the age. Abortion was punishable only if practiced by a woman against the wish of her husband, or at the instigation of her seducer. When a child came it was in many cases exposed. Only one family in a hundred, in the old Greek cities, reared more than one daughter: “Even a rich man,” reports Poseidippus, “always exposes a daughter.” Sisters were a rarity. Families with no child, or only one, were numerous. 

The downfall of Greece

 

Who Doesn't Like A Good Ghost Story?

 Especially if it's true, so here comes...

We've had a darn good vacation. Too good, in fact, as we've done all the things and visited all the places we couldn't for the last 2 years:)

I'll write more about it and post pics later this week, but now about this medieval festival. One day we went to a donkey market in a village close by and discovered that this village had a castle, and not just a castle, but one with unique architecture (only 5 in the whole Europe), a violent history and its own ghost. And a medieval festival being organised, there, too, so we right away decided to attend it, which we did. 

There was a tournament, sword fighting, music, food and all kinds of entertainment so we enjoyed ourselves very much. But we didn't meet a ghost. I guess they don't run around when it's so busy. The castle was originally the property of a warrior bishop, who was ambushed and killed by his enemies, and you can see the replica of his skull with a hole in it in the cellars. The next owner was a cousin or something, and his own son rebelled against him and put his father in prison where the said father died 6 years later.

Some further in line, there was a duke who couldn't produce a heir.  The ownership then went to the line of sheriffs and somewhere in the 14th or 15th century a sheriff died and left a widow and lots of treasure which tempted his neighbour into attacking the castle. Here the ghost story begins. It has a couple of variations so I'll try to present a compilation of them. 

The widow was a lady from an old aristocratic family mentioned in European genealogy, and she was determined to fight, but first she had to secure the treasure so she divided it into 3 parts (gold, jewels and coins) and buried it in three separate chests and also signed a treaty with the Devil presumably to secure help in her martial endeavours. 

Somewhere on the ruins of the main tower they say you can see distinctly the print of a female left hand and that of the Evil one right next to it (I won't lie I didn't find it). But, as we all know sin doesn't pay, so her soldiers who all came from a nearby village  rebelled and beheaded her. So since that time, presumably, on Wednesday and Friday eve (traditional Catholic fast days) this lady wanders around with her head in her hand, kidnaps men of that village, tears their heads off and cooks them in a witch's cauldron.

It's like 5 km away from us, lol! And her treasure has never been found...

St. George's Day

 Congratulations to my English/British readers on St.George's Day:

 Take a close look at the English flag. That red cross over a white background has meaning. It’s actually St. George’s Cross — a symbol so closely intertwined with English national identity that St. George has his own national holiday.

The legend of Saint George and the Dragon describes the saint taming and slaying a dragon that demanded human sacrifices. We celebrate St. George’s Day on April 23 — the anniversary of his death in 303 AD.

The patron saint of England has captivated British imaginations since the Crusades and the Hundred Years’ War. Perhaps the most British of all holidays, this special day is a chance to let your English flag fly, literally and figuratively.

Read the whole story over here. 

A Short Personal Note

I've had it very busy so far. The vacations have started and we booked a weekend away, then my mother-in-law was suddenly taken to hospital, and it's in another city, too, so takes time visiting (please pray for her quick recovery!) That's why I didn't have  time to write a proper post (but will do next week).

So I'm leaving you all with an interesting docu (unfortunately on YouTube, lol!)



See you later!

The Nordic Bronze Age

An interesting docu:



A couple of things to notice, first, their culture was advanced and patriarchal, it's almost like these two things go together; second, they buried their dead instead of burning them like later generations did, so anyone claiming that cremation is "our ancestral tradition" needs to finally shut up.

Specially For My American Readers

Here is the place where it all started: the historical Delfshaven, from where the Pilgrims sailed to America:

The church they used to pray in:

 Some things have hardly ever changed in all these years

Americans though you may call yourselves, your roots lie in Europe

Women Are The Worst Misogynists

A book review of sorts. Yesterday I finished Brother Cadfael's Penance by Ellis Peters, which is the last of Brother Cadfael's Chronicles. I still have to read a book containing 3 short stories with the same character, but as far as I know they are a prequel to the events described in Chronicles since in them Cadfael hasn't joined the monastery yet, so that Penance is really the end of the cycle. I'm planning to write a post about this whole series when I'm through.

Brother Cadfael's Penance is different from the other books in the series in a number of ways. It doesn't contain any romance though it does hint on the possibility in the beginning; and while there is a crime committed, there is little if any investigation on Cadfael's part, and the whole mystery and its solution play a very insignificant role in the book. On the other hand, the author keeps the tradition by inserting a nice amount of situational ethics into this story as well.

For those not familiar with Cadfael and his adventures, he is a Welsh crusader turned a Benedictine monk who lives in England during the war between King Stephen and Empress Maud for the throne and whose hobby is investigating crimes. Somewhere half way through the series, he learns that his Palestinian mistress bore him a son who later converted to Christianity, came to England and joined the fighting. Cadfael meets and recognises him, but decides to keep his peace.

In this last novel, he learns that his son Olivier is missing in action and leaves the monastery to search for him. Cadfael soon finds out that  Olivier is kept prisoner by Philip FitzRobert, the younger son of Maud's illegitimate half-brother Robert of Gloucester. The two used to be friends and fought on the same side, until, by some reason, Philip decided to switch  his loyalties and to betray the Empress's cause. The conflict between Philip and Maud, and to some extent, his own father forms the central theme of the book.

In the first couple of Cadfael stories, it appeared to me that Miss Peters was more or less sympathetic to the Empress, but as the story line progressed, Maud was shown less positively. In Penance, she's described as a venomous, murderous *itch with vile temper, who is neither particularly intelligent, nor thankful towards those who help her cause and who manipulates naive young men with her sexual charms to get what she wishes. The one worthy of the throne is Robert, but unfortunately, he's a bastard. In Wales, where the daughters don't inherit, he'd get his rights, thinks Cadfael.

I was intrigued enough to do some research online and that is what I found out. While Stephen was the late king's nephew through his mother, Maud was his only legitimate daughter, and before he died, he made all his court swear loyalty to her. She was married off quite young to the Emperor (of the Holy Roman Empire, I think), who died soon afterwards, and then  she was married off again to the Count of Anjou who was several years her junior. She nearly died in childbirth, but went on to have several more children with her husband after this.

When Stephen took the crown, she was in France together with her husband and made no attempts to restore her rights. The rebellion was started by Robert who had sworn loyalty to Stephen before. Robert was but one of many illegitimate children of the late king, but he was his eldest son and thus the most prominent. He probably could have taken the crown for himself, but refused to do so, citing English customs of the time, even though his grandfather William the Conqueror was illegitimate, too. If his father had wanted it, Robert could have probably become the next king.

Anyway, this and the civil war that followed, were hardly the fault of his half-sister. And, while some sources described her as aloof and even arrogant, there is little evidence that she was such a nasty piece of work as she comes across in Penance, neither was the real King Stephen this nice chivalrous guy the author portrays. Also, though illegitimate, Robert was still very well provided for.

Unlike in the novel, he had many sons and not just two by his legal wife, and, in fine family tradition, several more illegitimate kids. It's also noteworthy that the Welsh, like the Irish were Celtic and tolerated de-facto polygamy and easy divorce much later than their Anglo-Saxon neighbours. I'm not quite sure whether I agree with Miss Peters that their system was better, though. This is a topic open for discussion. However, I should say all these invented details make for some fine drama. If you like escapist fiction, this book (and the series) are definitely for you!

More On Babylonian Laws: Babylonian No-Fault Divorce

There is a certain similarity with Biblical laws, for instance, the principle of lex talionis, though there were differences as well, some of them significant. For example, as you all probably remember, the Bible states that God is not a respecter of persons and there will be one law for all members of society, including foreigners with legal status, though slaves were treated differently in some cases. In contrast, Hammurabi's Code made a distinction not only between slaves and free persons, but also between aristocrats and common folks.

They also had a rather liberal use of death penalty, which was used for crimes like theft, burglary, assisting a runaway slave, and in general, all kinds of things, excepting curious enough, various forms of incest; though incest between mother and son was punished by being burned alive. Adultery was punishable by drowning, though the husband had the right to forgive his errant wife, in this case the king had to forgive her paramour.

Babylonians were sure preoccupied with the problem of providing for women. They also knew very well the distinction between being married and shacking up, for the arrangement to be recognised as marriage the contract had to be signed. Interesting enough, though folks had no trouble with drawing this distinction 4 thousands years ago, some still don't understand the difference now.

The wife had to be provided for in the case of divorce or her husband's death. The husband could divorce her at any moment but had to restore her dowry, provide her with an income and give her the custody of the kids. She would also share the inheritance after his death. If she had no children, he had to pay her an equivalent of the bride price. The wife was free to remarry but it apparently didn't change the arrangements.

While Babylonian no-fault divorce was available only to the husband, both husband and wife could use the fault version of it. If the husband could prove in court that his wife was a bad wife, he could send her away keeping the children and the money, or reduce her to the position of the household slave, in which case he was still obligated to feed and maintain her. If the wife could prove domestic abuse and neglect, she could obtain a legal separation and her dowry, however, the husband could file a counter-suit and if he succeeded in proving her to be a bad wife, she would be executed.

Curious enough, if the husband left his wife without any money while, e.g., going to war, she was allowed to live together with another man who would take care of her financially, and it wouldn't be considered adultery, but she had to return to her husband when he came back. The children of her second union would stay with their father, however. If she could prove that her husband willfully abandoned her, or if he was exiled, her marriage was declared null and void, and she could do whatever the heck she chose.

This is all in contrast to the Assyrian laws that were generally very unfair to women which explicitly stated that the husband didn't have to give anything to his wife at all if they divorced, though they had a provision for widows. I'll talk about widows, inheritance and adoption next time.

The Man Who Killed The Bank

Mr Trump appears to be quite a fan of Andrew Jackson, known among other things, for killing the bank:

Never Again!

Never again brother wars in Europe for the benefit of the elite! And remember that December is a Christmas month...

A Christian Country?

I have chiefly refrained from discussing politics on this blog or commenting on political affairs, including upcoming American elections. No, I'm not going to tell my American readers for which candidate they should vote. That's between them and their conscience. There is something else I'd like to talk about instead.

A long time ago there was a discussion on a now defunct blog on what makes a country Christian. Someone said that a Christian country is one where people basically don't sin and live like perfect Christians so that medieval European countries weren't Christian at all since we had adultery and stuff.

Now were I to ask what makes a country Muslim what would be the answer? A country where the majority profess belief in Islam and  sharia ( or a modified version of it) is the law of the land. If the first condition is fulfilled but the second not, you have a secular Muslim country.

In a similar manner, in a Christian country, the majority profess belief in Christ and the law is based on the Scriptures, for instance, restricting divorce (or forbidding, in Catholic countries). A Christian country isn't one where the people all live exemplary sinless lives, because it is impossible!  The Bible teaches us that we are sinners and there is not one righteous among us. That includes our leaders. To pretend otherwise is to engage in a Pharisaical holier-than-thou purity spiral, especially nowadays when the worst sins are apparently "hurting feelings" and "not being nice".

So the most "Christian" candidate isn't necessarily someone pure as snow but rather a person more likely to uphold Christianity-based laws, or what's left out of them, or at least not to do a further damage like persecuting Christians, starting a major war etc etc.

I have been pondering over the life of Charles Martel, who, most historians agree saved Christianity and Western civilisation. Was he a "nice" person? Born of a polygamous union (and thus considered illegitimate by many), he engaged in war his whole life. He had a lot of blood on his hands, also of fellow Europeans, for instance, Saxons. He was also married two times (though not simultaneously) and (oh horrors!) had a long-term mistress who bore him many children. He probably had other women as well. Something tells me modern `Churchians` wouldn´t vote for him, either, because he couldn´t stand their `purity test`...

An Amazing Story Of Enrico Dandolo

Enrico Dandolo was a Venetian nobleman who later was elected Doge. Born in 1107, he spent most of his life on diplomatic missions. In 1171, at the age of 64 he accompanied Doge Vitale Michiel on a retaliatory military campaign against Constantinople which proved to be a disaster. He survived a plague epidemic and returned back to Venice only to be appointed an ambassador to the city a year later.

Around this time Enrico started losing his eyesight, as a result of a head wound which he presumably acquired when he was attacked by the mob in the streets of Constantinople though there is little information on the exact circumstances of his injury. By 1176 he appears to have been legally blind which didn't prevent him from fulfilling his duties. In fact, in the following years he twice travelled to Sicily as an ambassador to the King and went back to the city which he hated in 1183, to negotiate the restoration of the rights of the Venetians.

In 1192, when he was 85, Enrico became the next Doge. Despite his age, he was still very ambitious. In 1194 he undertook the currency reform which made Venetian money the dominant currency in the region for the coming years but that was not all. 10 years after his election, when Dandolo was 95 (yes, you read it correct), he decided it was time to go to war and thus took part in the fourth Crusade which sacked Constantinople so that he finally could pay back for all his humiliations.On the way to the city crusaders also sacked the Hungarian town of Zadar simply because they could which led to their excommunication but Enrico didn't seem to care.

Constantinople fell in 1204, and Dandolo played the leading role in this event. As a result, Venice gained the rights to 3/8 of the Byzantine Empire and one would think that at the ripe old age of 97 it would be enough for Enrico, but he apparently just tasted victory and wanted more so he went to fight against the Bulgarians. The crusaders lost that battle and Enrico died 3 weeks later, probably from disappointment, at about 98 years of age.

His son Raniero survived him only by 4 years since he was killed in battle in 1209 but his granddaughter Anna married into European royalty and became the Queen of Serbia. It's unclear whether Enrico had other children besides Raniero, but it's certain that he was married while being a Doge, probably to a much younger woman whose name was Contessa. Raniero appears to have been his son from his first marriage because he apparently already had children of his own at that time and even served as vice-doge during his father's absence.

You can read more about this remarkable man  over here.

11 April, 1935

As promised, it's the time for another historical post which will contain highlights from the next issue of the Catholic Illustration (Katholieke Illustratie). 

Among other things, we read more about the Liturgy of Holy Suffering,

a reportage about a flight to Berlin with F XXXVI "Eagle",

the continuation of a novel about the Danish king Waldemar which gets kidnapped together with his son by one of his German vassals, an article about how not to make photos,

a story about the then recent plane crash, with the pictures of the victims,

(the first pilot Piet Soer on the left),

an article about a wellness hotel in Switzerland, the events of the last week in pictures,

(the funeral of five scouts who died in a car crash)

(the Queen visits a flower exhibition)

(Lord Eden arrives in Prague and meets Dr. Benesch (on the right)), and then finally, we get the ladies' section.

So the ladies are given advice on how to save money while buying curtains, how to excercise the stomach muscles after childbirth and how to make this great tea cosy:

Because, as the article states, who wouldn't want to have it?

We now get to the fashions review. In the morning, you wore a woolen skirt with a dark blouse and a small hat, in the afternoon, a wide dress with enormous sleeves in black, or white by a black dress, in the evening, linen, cotton and artificial silk dresses with lace.

The menu for the week was:

Monday
Spinach soup, beef rolls with field peas, oranges.

Tuesday
Pork cutlets with rapini, bread pudding.

Wednesday
Ground meat with cabbage, pearl barley.

Thursday
Beans with fatback and onions, rhubarb.

Friday
 Atlantic cod with carrots, rice cake with apricot jam and warm vanilla sauce.

Saturday
Hutspot with  brisket, rice with butter and sugar.

Sunday
Bouillon (from the brisket) with egg cheese (omelet prepared au bain-marie), veal steaks with broad beans out of a jar, compote.

One of the last items of this issue is a legend about Doubusz, a hutsul living in Carpathian mountains. He once saw Saint Elias  arguing with the Devil and shot the Devil with his rifle. As a reward, an angel of the Lord made him impossible to kill with bullets, fire and steel  and Doubusz lived as an outlaw with a band of brave and strong men whose leader he became. He helped people in need and avenged crimes and injustice, however, as so many men before him, he was ruined by a woman.

Doubusz fell in love with Axenia, a sweetheart of another man and strange enough, when her original boyfriend Stefan decided to take revenge, Axenia agreed to help. She found out that the only way to kill Doubusz was to shoot him with a silver bullet  sprinkled with juice of the magic herbs over which twelve masses were read and well through his armpit.

So the next time when Doubusz came for his nightly visit, she mocked him and shut the door in his face. Doubusz raised his arms to break it and at this moment Stefan shot him with a magic silver bullet exactly through his armpit. And thusly ended the story of Doubusz.

Ladies and gentlemen, this was all for today.

Abraham Davenport

Abraham Davenport was an American politician who became prominent during the American Revolution. He also served as a colonel in Connecticut state militia. He became famous for his reaction to New England's Dark Day (May 19, 1780), when the unusual darkness came on between 10 and 11 a.m. which lasted till the middle of the next night. As Davenport's colleagues suggested adjourning (as they feared that the Judgement Day was approaching) he refused to do it stating that in any case, he preferred doing his duty.

Later John Whittier wrote a poem about this famous incident:

...Meanwhile in the old State House, dim as ghosts,
Sat the lawgivers of Connecticut,
Trembling beneath their legislative robes.
"It is the Lord's Great Day! Let us adjourn,"
Some said; and then, as if with one accord,
All eyes were turned to Abraham Davenport.
He rose, slow cleaving with his steady voice
The intolerable hush. "This well may be
The Day of Judgment which the world awaits;
But be it so or not, I only know
My present duty, and my Lord's command
To occupy till He come. So at the post
Where He hast set me in His providence,
I choose, for one, to meet Him face to face,
No faithless servant frightened from my task,
But ready when the Lord of the harvest calls;
And therefore, with all reverence, I would say,
Let God do His work, we will see to ours.
Bring in the candles." And they brought them in...

... And there he stands in memory to this day,
Erect, self-poised, a rugged face, half seen
Against the background of unnatural dark,
A witness to the ages as they pass,
That simple duty hath no place for fear.

Read the whole poem over here.

Saint Crispin's Day

On October, 25, St Crispin's Day, the English fought and won the Battle of Agincourt, despite being outnumbered 5 to 1. William Shakespeare dramatised it in Henry V:

 

July 4, 1908

This issue of The Prince (De Prins) opens with a picture of Count Du Monceau, a retired general and the chief of the Military House of Her Majesty the Queen:

There is a short article about the count who was at that time nearly 81 years old. His father was a major by the Hussars while the son, after graduating from the Royal Military Academy at Breda started his career as the second lieutenant by the infantry.

In ten years time, the king promoted him to adjutant which was apparently a high position in those times and he continued his service till he was promoted to General Major in 1884 and, after the king's death, to Adjutant General by his widow. Count du Monceau was also the private secretary and librarian of the late king. He retired in 1892 as Lieutenant General but continued to serve the Dutch Royal family as the chief of the Military House.

The count was the Commander in the order of the Dutch Lion, Greatcross in the order of Orange, the Knight of the 1st class in the order of the Golden Lion of Nassau and overall, apparently, a very important man.

The next article tells us a story behind this monument in Rotterdam:

This is a statue of Gijsbert Karel, Count of Hogendorp.

 Gijsbert Karel was born in 1762 and fought in his first war before the age of 20. In 1782 he became an officer of the guards and was sent to America on a diplomatic mission, where he narrowly survived a shipwreck. When he came back, he resumed his studies at Leiden University and got engaged in politics.

Being a patriot, Gijsbert Karel refused to serve the French in the times of Napoleon, retired from his political position and started a successful business. He also wrote books on the political and social subjects, such as finances. After Napoleon's defeat he resumed his political career but eventually had to retire in 1826 due to ill health. He died in 1834, after receiving the Greatcross of the Dutch Lion from King William the 1st.

After this historical information, we are treated to a sentimental Victorian short story about the love triangle between an orphan girl, her guardian and a young army officer where everybody dies in the end and the admonition to the youngsters of Amsterdam to finally start behaving properly during the summer vacations.

On the next page there is a news item about the death of Grover Cleveland, an ex-President of the USA, with the picture of his family. Below it is the photo of the Sultan of Asahan visiting the zoo of Rotterdam:

Grover Cleveland, twice the president of the USA, started his career as a clerk in a lawyer's office. He was against protectionism and helped resolve a financial crisis.

Next comes the story of the castle of Rozendaal which the Lords of Gelderland fought and died for. In the end, it was inherited by Baron Torck who decided to renovate it according to the modern standards and thus changed it from a typically medieval fortress into this:

Still not bad, what do you think?

The next item is an article about butterflies, then comes a short story by Rider Haggard (the author of the King Solomon Mines) on the topic of love and honour, some info about building a new railway in one of the colonies, and finally, the first chapter of a German novel about a young lieutenant (of course!) unfortunate in love. His sweetheart forced him to choose between honour and love (do I see a pattern over here?) and he chose honour, so she chose another husband. Now his friends are setting him up with another girl, so I guess he will be comforted in the end.

The issue ends with pictures of the men which were in the news that week, including some officers who died in battle.

Next time we travel to 1935 and find out what were Dutch Catholics up to.

The Story Of Regulus

Marcus Atilius Regulus was a Roman consul and general, who was taken prisoner by Carthaginians in 255 B.C. and charged by them with negotiating peace, but instead he pointed out their weakness to the Roman Senate and urged for war.  He had sworn to return back to Carthage, and this he did, knowing full well what it meant for him.

He was subsequently tortured to death (crucified by this account ) and has been remembered since that time as an example of Roman virtue (later historians claimed his wife avenged his death by killing two Carthaginian prisoners in the same manner).

Regulus served as an inspiration to the Roman poet Horace (Q. Horatius Flaccus), who dedicated one of his odes to him:

...'Twas this that Regulus foresaw,
What time he spurn'd the foul disgrace
Of peace, whose precedent would draw
Destruction on an unborn race,
Should aught but death the prisoner's chain
Unrivet. “I have seen,” he said,
“Rome's eagle in a Punic fane,
And armour, ne'er a blood-drop shed,
Stripp'd from the soldier; I have seen
Free sons of Rome with arms fast tied;
The fields we spoil'd with corn are green,
And Carthage opes her portals wide...

...His wife's pure kiss he waved aside,
And prattling boys, as one disgraced,
They tell us, and with manly pride
Stern on the ground his visage placed.
With counsel thus ne'er else aread
He nerved the fathers' weak intent,
And, girt by friends that mourn'd him, sped
Into illustrious banishment.
Well witting what the torturer's art
Design'd him, with like unconcern
The press of kin he push'd apart
And crowds encumbering his return...

(Quoted from here) You can also watch in on YouTube where it's read aloud in the original language:
Horace, Ode III.5, Regulus. 

Regulus has inspired Kipling to write a story with the same name, about a boys' boarding school. He is also mentioned in one of Laura Ingalls' "Little House On The Prairie" books, as she and Mary learn his speech by heart. Those two are probably the most famous examples, however, there seemed to be an 18th century English tragedy dedicated to him, which can be read over here.

Below is an excerpt, featuring the farewell speech of Regulus to his son (I changed the spelling slightly):

If Rome should raise thee to her highest Service
(As thou hast Merit  to expect her Honours)
Serve her for Love of Rome, and not of Interest;
Let Glory be thy second Motive only,
Thy Country´s Love be ever first, and dearest;
In Liberty´s Defence fight constant, single
Die with her - ´tis no Life if you survive her;
The greatest Glory of a free-born People,
Is to transmit that Freedom to their Children.

Search out for hidden Worth - and then reward it:
The noblest Prospect to a Roman Eye,
Is Greatness, lifting Merit up to Fame.

Let Falsehood be a Stranger to thy lips;
Shame on the Policy that first began
To temper with the Heart to hide its Thoughts!
And double Shame on that Inglorious Tongue,
That sold its Honesty, and told a Lie!

And that is the story of Regulus.

Feminism vs "Social" Feminism

The roots of many things which plague our society go back to the XIXth century. Feminism is no exception, as I have often pointed out in my previous posts on this topic. However, few people know that from the beginning, feminism wasn't a homogenous movement, or rather, that there were basically two groups of people who called themselves feminists.

F. Carolyn Graglia writes in her famous book Domestic Tranquility that some early feminists actually came with a theory of separate spheres for women, though equal in importance, while others, such as Charlotte Perkins Gilman ridiculed this idea and wanted total economic independence for women. Ms Gilman denounced the traditional homemaker as a "parasitic creature" and even a "horse-leech's daughter" with aspirations of "an affectionate guinea pig" (see for reference Domestic Tranquility, Spence Publishing, 1998, p. 103-104).

Her ideas were supported by the National Woman Party which  entered into an unholy alliance with the National Association of  Manufacturers to push more women and children into workforce and abolish all the protective legislation aimed at those groups.

Those who called themselves "social" feminists, on the other hand, objected to the employment of (married) women and mothers and promoted the idea of a "family wage", so that the wives wouldn't be subjected to "the drudgery of a cotton mill" (idem). It was social feminists such as Mary Anderson of the Women's Bureau who fought for the "family wage" so that mothers could stay home and children would be spared from the day care (idem, p.105).

If you remember, one of the slogans of the feminist movement of the 1960 was "equal pay for equal work". They stated that it was the ubiquitous patriarchy which oppressed a working woman with the "family wage" (i.e. higher wages for male breadwinners), even though it was another group of feminists which had introduced it. Does it even make sense to you?

I don't know that much about ´social` feminists, but the way I see it, they at least tried to protect traditional family, women and children, especially those of lower classes who, unlike their UMC "sisters" didn't have a fancy career but were more likely to work somewhere in a sweatshop for the minimum wage; while modern feminists who are overwhelmingly elite women, often with some cushy sort of job are enthusiastically encouraging their inferiors to dig ditches.  I'd say, they should lead by example!