Courtesans and kings

[fpb]

The modern world is so hypocritical that the most repressive Victorian aunt would appear as a positive monster of blunt speech and free thought by comparison with us. This is a thought I often had, but never more than when faced with the coverage of the Sarkozy/Bruni affair. The swoony romantic tinges in which this pretty ordinary meeting of a powerful man and an immodest maiden young enough to be his daughter has been written up, really makes me blush for the intellectual honesty of our times.

Carla Bruni is a courtesan. She has never gone to bed with a man who did not do something for her career and reputation; and one does not have to ask whether the likes of Mick Jagger and Eric Clapton ever took their nights with her more seriously than she did. Now, like many of history's more famous courtesans, she has become the mistress of the French head of state. All right. But in the name of not so much of heaven, as of sex, female beauty, lust, and desire, don't call it a love story. Don't pretend there is anything especially romantic about it. Yes, Sarkozy is a well preserved, energetic and not unattractive middle-aged man. There is nothing especially ridiculous about his having affairs. But is there a single person in this world willing to stand up and suggest that Carla Bruni would have given him a second look if he had not been one of the most powerful men in the world?

That is what I find sickening: that every most obvious affair of lust, every encounter that bears on its own face the picture of its own impermanence, is treated as a genuine love affair and written up in the romantic style. The difference between love and sex has been completely neglected; as has that between the ordinary woman, the courtesan, and the tart.

And that, I think, is bad for everyone. It is not only the matter of morality - on which I would have very little to say that has not been already said better. It is the matter of mental balance and sense. For whatever reason, a small number of women in every generation are born with a talent for - to be vulgar - whoring, a talent which, unlike the common run of prostitutes, propels them up rather than down. Lady Diana Spencer, to mention a modern case, was definitely one. Her proper place was not as a royal bride, but as a royal bedfellow, and she would probably have been happier that way. In the saner past, wome like her, from Ninon de l'Enclos to the Marchesa di Castiglione to Pamela Digby, knew exactly what they were and what they were good for; they easily found their place in society and even ended up getting a kind of grudging admiration from society at large. They could even affect history, Castiglione as Cavour's agent and Digby as Churchill's, in significant ways. But as we have been taught to make no distinction between lust and love, or even to ignore that lust exists, the unfortunate young Spencer mistook her predatory instincts for love, and allowed her intended prey and herself to be marched up the aisle. Previous generations of any royal family would never have made such an egregious mistake.

Bruni, at least, is not so confused. Whoever else may be deceived, there is no evidence whatever that she is. All her steps in life have been towards the goal of becoming what her language calls il riposo del guerriero - the warrior's rest - so long as the warrior in question led large armies. And that being the case, she will probably do less harm than the self-deceived Diana did.

Comments

[guarani]

Ignorance, once again, is singled out as the main culprit. We can also add that our society has been so good at erasing differences that everything is more or less the same nowadays.

[cruft.livejournal.com]

Is a tart just a courtesan who doesn't accept credit cards?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Mm, no. A tart is a courtesan without foresight and often without charm.

[eliskimo.livejournal.com]

Evidently the Canadian press is not nearly so interested in the doings of Sarkozy as the British press is.

That said, I think I would inclinded to agree with you Bruni, but not about Diana. It maybe very well to say in retrospect that she was self-deluded (and perhaps in some ways she was), but in this regard, I think not. As you say, Bruni has known what she was doing all along. I don't think the 20-year-old sheltered minor aristocrat/pre-school teacher had any thoughts along those lines.

However, I will not hold Charles so innocent. He should have been able to make the distinction you outline, and furthermore, he should have done so. If anyone deserves a label of "self-deceived" it would be him. As you point out previous generations of royals would not have made that mistake. At the time of the courtship, the only royal in the relationship was him.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Granted. But he has the attenuating circumstance that he had, at the time, been deprived of the love of his life, Camilla. And it still has to do with the inability of our whole culture to see the difference between married love and lust.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Oh, PS - a member of the house of Spencer is hardly a "minor" aristocrat.

[leia-naberrie.livejournal.com]

For whatever reason, a small number of women in every generation are born with a talent for - to be vulgar - whoring, a talent which, unlike the common run of prostitutes, propels them up rather than down.

Are you trying to say that some women are born with a vocation to becoming courtesans?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Yes. Or at least, with qualities that insure they would be successful in that field. Someone like Pamela Digby Churchill Harriman etc. etc. did not need to be taught: she showed an ability to find and attract powerful men right from her teens. Ninon de l'Enclos was regarded as irresistible well into her sixties; indeed, the same can be said of Pamela etc.

[leia-naberrie.livejournal.com]

So in that vein, are some men born to be the courtesan equivalent for males?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Women are better placed than I to say so. The novels of Agatha Christie, for instance, are full of what may be called, for want of a better expression, male courtesans - most of them, but not all, villainous. I have hypothized a kind of non-sexual version of it here: http://fpb.livejournal.com/59346.html.

[wudjuwait.livejournal.com]

You know centurion, I keep coming back to this post of and looking at this post of yours. It's beyond offensive! Honestly, I think it'd be a good idea to read here http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page151.asp and delete it.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

So you are surprised that someone finds Diana a typical courtesan? Well, well, how sad. Evidently you are not prepared for a world where people really see things differently from you. But you know, I am not disposed to apologize to you for not being willing to share your blinkers. If you read something of how Diana behaved to her unfortunate husband, how she used and manipulated people around her, and her fantastically vulgar pursuit of that Pakistani surgeon (I do not object to her falling for a Pakistani man, but to her performing stunts as demeaning as going to his place of work wearing a coat and nothing underneath - that is not how I would want to be wooed in the unlikely event that a woman fell for me), you might find your admiration for the peroxide goddess slightly deflated. Best not to deal with reality, then.

[wudjuwait.livejournal.com]

and whilst i'm having a break from my self imposed moratorium on posting...
i didn't ask what you assume i think or for an apology. read my response again and your post includes the now *mrs sarkozy* btw!

[fpb.livejournal.com]

This is so ungrammatical that I defy anyone with any knowledge of English to understand what is being said.

A suggested shopping list

[fpb.livejournal.com]

PS: if your "centurion" is meant to be a witty allusion to my icon, I would suggest you go somewhere and purchase some wit. I am told there is such a thing as cheap wit, but you don't even seem able to afford that. Someone who cannot tell the difference between a Greek goddess and a Roman NCO is also in dire need of a pair of glasses - and perhaps of some culture.

Re: A suggested shopping list

[wudjuwait.livejournal.com]

don't you recognize a term of endearment when you see one?

Re: A suggested shopping list

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I refer to my remarks about your grammar. I doubt I would be able to understand it - I speak English, after all. And frankly, endearments from you would make me wonder what on Earth I was doing wrong.